Knowledge Sharing through Web 2.0 Technologies: A study of community of practice of librarians

Abstract

Knowledge management and sharing has become one of the important features of successful organisations. Using Communities of Practice (CoP) as a framework, this paper explores various Web 2.0 technologies and investigates the familiarity, availability, frequency of use, reasons of use, and obstacles in the use of Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge sharing by librarians' CoP in Pakistan. Data for this paper was gathered using a survey questionnaire through survey-monkey, using professional discussion group namely, PakLAG. About 100 librarians participated in the survey. Findings of the study show that, a majority of the respondents were male (n=71) and were young. Most of the respondents were familiar with social networking (96%), blogs (90%), presentation/slide-sharing (84%), documents sharing tools (78%), and photo sharing and micro-blogs (77%). Social networking sites (92.82%), blogs (83.67%), wikis (77.55%), photo sharing (74.49%), presentation/slide-sharing (78.57%), and video sharing (72.86%), were available to more than 70% of the librarians' CoP. Social Networking sites were used very frequently by 62.22% of the librarians; most librarians (85.42%) shared 'work experiences', followed by sharing of 'expertise from training or education' (71.88%). Findings suggest that familiarity, availability and use of Web 2.0 technologies are increasing among librarians' CoP in Pakistan.

Full text

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
113
Knowledge Sharing through Web 2.0 Technologies:
A study of community of practice of librarians
Sajjad Ahmad,* Khalid Mahmood,† Muhammad Ismail‡ & Shehzad Ahmad§
Abstract
Knowledge management and sharing has become one of the important features
of successful organisations. Using Communities of Practice (CoP) as a
framework, this paper explores various Web 2.0 technologies and investigates
the familiarity, availability, frequency of use, reasons of use, and obstacles in the
use of Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge sharing by librarians’ CoP in
Pakistan. Data for this paper was gathered using a survey questionnaire through
survey-monkey, using professional discussion group namely, PakLAG. About 100
librarians participated in the survey. Findings of the study show that, a majority
of the respondents were male (n=71) and were young. Most of the respondents
were familiar with social networking (96%), blogs (90%), presentation/slide-
sharing (84%), documents sharing tools (78%), and photo sharing and micro-
blogs (77%). Social networking sites (92.82%), blogs (83.67%), wikis (77.55%),
photo sharing (74.49%), presentation/slide- sharing (78.57%), and video sharing
(72.86%), were available to more than 70% of the librarians’ CoP. Social
Networking sites were used very frequently by 62.22% of the librarians; most
librarians (85.42%) shared ‘work experiences’, followed by sharing of ‘expertise
from training or education’ (71.88%). Findings suggest that familiarity,
availability and use of Web 2.0 technologies are increasing among librarians’
CoP in Pakistan.
Keywords: Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, Communities of Practice, Web 2.0,
Information needs, Information behavior
Introduction
In today’s age of information and knowledge, knowledge is the most important part in the
success of both the individuals and organizations. In fact, knowledge will be one of the
important sources of competitive lead among organizations. These knowledge assets are
* Assistant Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, University of Peshawar.
† Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, University of the Punjab
‡ Assistant Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, University of Peshawar
§ Librarian, Edwards College Peshawar

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
114
found in different shapes and place e.g. databases, people’s heads, filling cabinets, and
are disseminated across the organization. Knowledge assets are the ‘knowledge’ that an
organization owns and use to achieve its goals. Therefore, the organization’s success
largely depends on a proper knowledge management. Knowledge Management (KM) is a
discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, managing and sharing all
of an organization's knowledge assets. In other words, Knowledge Management is taking
advantage of what you know (Kim, 2000). As Knowledge Management developed,
Communities of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998) became popular, even dominant KM
intervention. Then it was supplemented by storytelling (Denning, 2001) interventions
involving workers to use stories to share knowledge. But more recently, Social Network
Analysis (Cross & Parker, 2004) is being used to discover the relationship in existing
communities. In all these it is important to note that Knowledge Sharing is the key
element in effective KM. Without sharing of knowledge, KM will not be effective and
organization will quit from competitive atmosphere gradually. Sharratt and Usoro (2003)
stated that “sharing is a process whereby a resource is given by one party and received by
another”, in addition to knowledge sharing: “It is the process by which individuals
collectively and iteratively refine a thought, an idea or a suggestion in the light of
experience” (Chua, 2003).
Library and information profession is characterized by rapid change. Coping with the
technological innovations in the information environment librarians always need to
acquire new sets of skills. There are many formal and informal modes for their learning.
Latest developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) have also
opened new avenue for professional development of librarians. Librarians because of the
professional nature of their job and due to involvement with variety of users have to
improve their skills in the usage of modern tools specially Web 2.0 technologies, so
through these ways, they will be able to share their knowledge with their professional
colleagues to meet their users’ need faster and more efficiently.
As one way of knowledge sharing among members of an organization is through
Communities of Practice (CoP) and studies (Colon-Aguirre, Freberg & Scrips, 2012)
have shown that Web 2.0 technologies can help and promote the creation of CoP among
librarians also. But this research focuses on how Web 2.0 technologies are used in intra-
and inter-organizational knowledge sharing mechanisms of librarians’ communities of
practice. The role of latest Web 2.0 applications in this regard is also included in the
study. The findings of this study will contribute towards effective use of technological
innovations for professional development of librarians in the country.
Literature Review
In the last decade KM, CoP, and Web 2.0 studies have been the focus of many
researchers in different countries. The literature review examines latest research studies
related to the topic. This acts as a foundation for the proposed study. It also explains the

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
115
need for the proposed study to appraise the shortcomings and/or informational gaps in the
available literature. The literature review is presented as follows:
Knowledge Sharing
The librarians are knowledge workers. They play an active role in the knowledge
exchange of humankind. As Information professionals, they believe in the notion “The
sharing of knowledge is power” rather than Bacon’s “Knowledge is power”. They have
adopted many ways to share their knowledge at local, regional and global level.
Knowledge Sharing is the “intentional (and often unintentional) flow of knowledge
between individuals, groups, and organizations” (Paquette, 2006). It is a core element of
knowledge management which is “the systematic process of identifying, capturing,
organizing, and disseminating/sharing explicit and tacit knowledge assets that add value
within an organization” (Srikantaiah, 2008). Knowledge sharing is a precondition of
knowledge creation which is the ultimate goal of knowledge management. Knowledge
can be shared among professionals through formal and informal ways. Formal modes
include courses, seminars, workshops, tele/video conferences, e-meetings and online
courses while informal means include networking events, team projects and Web-based
collaborative spaces.
Library literature is full of studies on the role of libraries and librarians in knowledge
management. Librarians create a culture of knowledge sharing to exchange explicit and
tacit knowledge among themselves and with their clients. In a survey of academic
libraries of Africa, 50 percent had a strong culture of knowledge sharing (Jain, 2007).
Another study by Maponya (2004) indicated that academic librarians shared knowledge
informally within the library (87%), preparing written documentation such as newsletters
(83%), and in collaborative work by teams (52%). Studies also found that librarians spent
more time for informal professional development as compared to formal development
activities. For example, a sample of 553 reference librarians spent an average of 248
hours in a year for informal learning as compared to only 26 hours for formal CPD
activities (Auster & Chan, 2004).
Communities of Practice
The community of practice (CoP) concept has received a lot of attention in the literature
of knowledge management. Communities of Practice theory originated in research into
situated learning- learning as a social participation, when educational anthropologist Jean
Lave investigated cognition (Lave, 1988). Later on when Lave collaborated with a
Computer Scientist Etienne Wenger to work on Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation, the concept of CoP was a central part of their developing theory of situated
learning (Davies, 2005).The CoPs are “groups of people who share a concern, a set of
problems, or a passion about a topic and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in
this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002).

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
116
They are focused on a domain of knowledge and over time accumulate expertise in this
domain. They develop their shared practice by interacting around problems, solutions,
and insights, and building a common store of knowledge (Wenger, 2001). To others
communities of practice are, “a group of people who share social interaction and some
common ties between themselves and other members of the group” (Humman, 2001).
According to Hara (2009), communities of practice are collaborative, informal networks
that support professional practitioners in their efforts to develop shared understandings
and engage in work-relevant knowledge building. A CoP develops around a certain
activity/profession, such as legal practice, medical practice, collaborative efforts of
information technology professionals, librarianship, or teaching and instruction. In fact, a
shared professional identity is the glue that binds the members of a community together.
Nickols (2003) identified two types of CoPs: self-organizing and sponsored. While
sponsored CoPs are initiated and chartered by management, self-organizing CoPs evolve
on their own, are informal, and reflect the group’s interests.
Various studies have identified communities of practice as a hub for sharing knowledge
among practitioners. Cross (2007) estimated that only 20 percent of the information and
skills one needs to work are learned formally, yet informal learning is often overlooked in
the workplace. The CoP approach of knowledge sharing can help promote extracurricular
learning and a deeper understanding and commitment to the skills being introduced in the
formal classroom. In this approach learning is informal and open (Goodwin & Gola,
2008). “The ability of a community of practice to create a friendly environment for
individuals with similar interests and problems to discuss a common subject matter
encourages the transfer and creation of new knowledge” (Paquette, 2006).
Recent advances in information and communication technology have enhanced the ability
of individuals to access and participate in communities of practice. Due to the use of
Internet terms like online and virtual CoPs are becoming commonplace. One can also
find a number of CoPs of librarians on the World Wide Web. Bailey and Hendrickson
(2004) introduced the activities of a CoP of information professionals (Information
Providers Network at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology). This
network contained many of the criteria recommended, by Ahmed, Lim and Loh (2002),
for an organic structure that facilitates knowledge sharing, i.e., nonhierarchical, free from
rules, participative and informal, face-to-face communication, little red tape, and
interdisciplinary teams that break down departmental barriers. Participant feedback on
this network was very positive. Pennell (2008) described how teacher librarians can make
connections with their colleagues through professional learning communities at schools.
Powis (2005) shared his experience in creating a community of practice of teaching
librarians (i.e., Infoteach). Tacit knowledge rooted in an organization’s workers is an
asset that is not easy to capture. CoPs, however, offer a practical mechanism to help their
members share and internalize tacit knowledge. In addition to that, through the CoP,
people can increase their expertise by discussing work-related activities with their co-
workers. As well as enabling members to share existing knowledge, CoPs also provide
opportunities for the creation of new knowledge.

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
117
Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is a term that has been used to label new Web technologies that allow users to
create, personalize and share information in ways that were not possible a few years ago
(Benson & Favini, 2006). Abram (2008) lists technologies included in Web 2.0. These
are RSS (really simple syndication); Wikis; new, simple, and revised programming
methods like AJAX, J2EE, widgets, gadgets, Mashups, and APIs; Blogs and blogging;
advanced portals and portlets; commentary and comments functionality; personalization
and "My Profile" features; personal media such as podcasting and MP3 files; streaming
media audio and video formats; reviews and user-driven ratings; personalized alerts; Web
services for enhancement and data mining; instant messaging and virtual reference
including cobrowsing; folksonomies, tagging, and tag clouds; photos (for example,
Flickr; Picasa); Social Networking software; open access, open source, open content;
socially driven content; and social bookmarking.
As libraries and librarians have always been early and enthusiastic adopters of new
information technologies they have welcomed Web 2.0 applications. With the application
of these technologies and philosophy in library setting some authors coined the terms
“Library 2.0” and “Librarian 2.0.” “Most tech-savvy librarians have embraced at least
one or two aspects of Library 2.0 and incorporated them either into their library, their
personal interactions, or both” (Boxen, 2008).
Many studies have been conducted regarding awareness, perceptions, importance and use
of Web 2.0 techologies by librarians. Broady-Preston (2009) described how Web 2.0
applications have drastically changed the education, training and development of
information professional. He recommended that a fundamental re-examination of
competencies of information professionals was required. In a series of articles Barsky
(2006a; 2006b), Barsky and Giustini (2007) and Barsky and Purdon (2006) discussed the
possible uses of RSS, weBlogs, podcasting, Wikis, Social Networking and social
bookmarking for health librarians. Naslund (2008) introduced some popular Web 2.0
learning tools for teacher librarians. In a recent study, Aharony (2009) explored the
familiarity and use of different Web 2.0 applications by Israili librarians. In a survey of
librarians in China, Cao (2009) found that 91 percent respondents used Web 2.0
applications for personal purposes. The applications included Blogs (91%), Wikis (46%),
RSS (74%), social bookmarking (48%), podcasting (24%), and other tools such as Social
Networking sites, Mashups, etc. (35%).
A number of researchers studied the impact of individual technologies on librarians’
professional and personal life. They found these applications very helpful in sharing
knowledge among librarians and with their patrons. Some examples are: Blogs and
blogging (Bar-Ilan, 2004, 2007; Bell, 2005; Laning, Lavallée-Welch & Smith, 2005),
Wikis (Chu, 2009; Deitering & Bridgewater, 2007), Social Networking sites like
Facebook (Breeding, 2007), instant messaging (Abram, 2004; Steiner & Long, 2007),

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
118
free messaging service Twitter (Giustini & Wright, 2009; Milstein, 2009), RSS feeds
(Wu & Li, 2007), and social tagging (Bianco, 2009).
Hossenini and Hashempour (2012) conducted a study on the status of librarians’
knowledge sharing by the use of Web 2.0 tools. For this they surveyed all the librarians’
working in the central libraries of Tabriz governmental universities. Their findings were
that; most of the librarians (72.4%) were familiar with the concept of knowledge sharing
and most of them believe that Web 2.0 facilitate knowledge sharing. Majority of
librarians’ (59.4%) were familiar with Instant Messaging and 48.6% were familiar with
Weblogs. Similarly 51.3% of librarians’’ were using Instant Messaging and 43.2% were
using Weblogs for knowledge sharing, while Social Networking Sites were used by
13.5% of librarians’. The main reasons of usage of Web 2.0 tools in knowledge sharing
were ‘speed of usage’, ‘ease of use’, ‘personal knowledge management’, and easier
communication with far away colleagues’. While the main obstacles in the effective
usage of Web 2.0 tools were ‘lack of knowledge in the usage of these tools’ (64.9%),
‘lack of familiarity with these services’ (59.5%), and ‘inadequate hardwares and
softwares’(56.8%).
Wiorogorska and Rehman (2012) studied Knowledge Sharing and role of Web 2.0
application among GERiiCo students in France. They reported that students were willing
to share and collaborate their knowledge through communication channels like face to
face, e-mail and Web 2.0 tools. Rehman and Shafique (2011) stated that in Pakistan, the
use of computer in libraries was started in 1980s. Initially the libraries started using
programs like word processors and spread sheets, while few were using desktop
applications for library automation and most of those applications were commercially and
locally developed (Mahmood, 2008). They also reported that the Internet use in libraries
was started in early 1990s, and librarians were using e-mail and World Wide Web. But
currently the use of Web 2.0 applications was increased among the librarians in both the
public and private sector organizations, irrespective of gender discrimination. Their
findings showed that most of the respondents were using e-mail groups (daily) followed
by instant messaging (weekly). In another study Arif and Mahmood (2010) reported the
use of Web 2.0 technologies in Pakistani libraries. Their findings revealed that the
Internet skill was the main factor in implementation of Web 2.0 technologies in the
libraries. Most of the respondents reported the use of Web 2.0 technologies to provide
library services. The instant messaging has maximum usage followed by Social
Networking. About half of the respondents used Blogs, electronic groups and Wikis.
Forty-five respondents used RSS while a podcasting service has the lowest use. The main
problems in the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in the libraries were lack of computer
literacy, unavailability of computers and Internet facility in the libraries.
A cursory look at the literature above ascertains that the communities of practice
approach and Web 2.0 technologies can play an important role in knowledge sharing
among librarians, which is necessary for their professional development and to cope with
rapidly changing nature of their work environment.

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
119
Problem Statement
Just like many other organizations, libraries are also dependent on the knowledge of their
workers. Online technologies and networks have greatly contributed to the process of
knowledge sharing among workers. One of those technologies and networks is Web 2.0
technologies that facilitates the creation of communities in which members’ can
collaborate and share ideas as well as useful knowledge regardless of their location.
On the other hand, there is a wide gap in the literature and the topics of knowledge
management and Web 2.0 are new to library community in Pakistan. The review of
literature shows that no study has been conducted so far to investigate the knowledge
sharing practices of librarians with the use of Web 2.0 applications. Therefore research
should be conducted not only to explore Web 2.0 technologies, but to investigate the
familiarity, availability, frequency of use, reasons of use, and obstacles in use of Web 2.0
technologies for knowledge sharing by librarians’ CoP in the country.
Objectives
The objectives of this study are:
1. To know the familiarity of librarians’ communities of practice with Web 2.0
technologies.
2. To study the availability of Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge sharing among
librarians’ communities of practice.
3. To know how frequently they use various Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge
sharing.
4. To study what type of knowledge they share with their LIS colleagues via Web
2.0 technologies.
5. To study the reasons for their willingness to use Web 2.0 technologies in
knowledge sharing.
6. To know what are the main obstacles in the effective use of Web 2.0
technologies for knowledge sharing
Methodology
This descriptive study was conducted in the following two phases:
1. A comprehensive review of literature on Web 2.0 technologies, Knowledge
Sharing and Communities of Practice was conducted.
2. An online survey of a sample of librarians to accomplish the objectives of the
study.
This study used a survey research method. Earlier this, a detailed review of the literature
was conducted. As a result a literature based questionnaire was developed consisted of

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
120
eight questions to gather data about librarians’ CoP knowledge sharing practices through
the use of Web 2.0 technologies. The survey was created using surveymonkey
(http://www.surveymonkey.com) and the link of this survey was sent on professional
discussion group PakLAG. The survey was available to the Librarians’ CoP for more
than a month period. More than 100 librarians participated in this survey. All the
librarians’ Cop did not answer for all the questions being asked in the survey. For data
analysis SPSS 17.0 was used.
Data Analysis and Discussion
Respondents’ Gender
Table 1 show that a total of 100 librarians’ CoP from different libraries participated in
this survey. In which a large number of respondents were male (n=71) and only 29 were
female.
Table 1 Frequency distribution of Respondents’ Gender
Answer Choices
Responses
Female
29.00%
29
Male
71%
71
Total
100
Respondents’ Age
A majority of the respondents (n=45) which becomes 45.92% of the total were aged
between 31-40 years, followed by respondents (n=30) i.e. 30.61% were up to 30 years of
age. Only 1.20% of the librarians CoP who participated in the survey were of 60 years
and above. It shows that most of the young people were interested in the topic and
participated in the survey and that young librarians’ CoP were involved in knowledge
sharing practices and usage of Web 2.0 technologies.
Table 2 Frequency distribution of the Respondents’ Age
Answer Choices
Responses
up to 30 years
30.61%
30
31 to 40
45.92%
45

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
121
Answer Choices
Responses
41 to 50
18.37%
18
51 to 60
4.08%
4
60 and above
1.02%
1
Total
98
Familiarity with Web 2.0 Technologies
Table 3 provides information about the librarians’ CoP familiarity with various Web 2.0
technologies. Most of the respondents were familiar with Social Networking (96%),
Blogs (90%), Presentation/Slide Sharing (84%), Documents Sharing tools (78%), photo
sharing and micro-Blogs (77%). On the other hand less number of librarian CoP were
familiar with vertical search engines (31%), customized/personalized Web Pages for
users (35%). While the study of Hossenini and Hashempour (2012) reported that majority
of the librarians’ were familiar with Instant Messaging, followed by Weblogs.
Table 3 Frequency distribution of Librarians’ CoP familiarity with Web 2.0
technologies
Answer Choices
Responses
Blogs
90% (90)
Micro Blogs (Twitter)
77% (77)
Wikis
78% (78)
Social Networking Sites (Face book, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc)
96% (96)
Podcasts/Audio sharing
52% (52)
Social bookmarking/Folksonomies (Delicious, CiteUlike, etc
67% (67)
Photo sharing (Flicker, Web shots, Photo bucket, Picasa, etc)
77% (77)
Documents Sharingtools (Google docs, etc)
78% (78)
Presentation sharing (Slide share)
84% (84)
Really Simple Syndication (RSS)
70% (70)
Vodcasts/Video sharing
58.00% (58)
Instant Messaging
72% (72)
Vertical search engines (For domain or subject specific searches)
31% (31)

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
122
Answer Choices
Responses
Customized/Personalized WebPages for users (Like iGoogle)
35% (35)
Mashups (Google maps, etc)
47% (47)
Mobile Computing
43% (43)
Total Respondents:
100
Availability of Web 2.0 Technologies
The librarians’ CoP were asked about the status of availability of different Web 2.0
technologies. The data in table 4 presents the findings in this regard, which showed that
Social Networking cites (92.82%), Blogs (83.67%), Wikis (77.55%), photo sharing
(74.49%), Presentation/Slide Sharing (78.57%), Video Sharing (72.86%), are available to
more than 70% of the librarians participated in the survey. While Mobile Computing
(34.69%), Customized/Personalized Web Pages for users (26.53%), and Vertical Search
Engines (24.49%) are comparatively available to less number of librarians’ CoP.
Table 4 Frequency distribution of the availability of Web 2.0 technologies
Answer Choices
Responses
Blogs
83.67%
82
Micro Blogs (Twitter)
69.39%
68
Wikis
77.55%
76
Social Networking Sites (Face book, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc)
90.82%
89
Podcasts/Audio sharing
47.96%
47
Social bookmarking/Folksonomies (Delicious, CiteUlike, etc)
62.24%
61
Photo sharing (Flicker, Web shots, Photo bucket, Picasa, etc)
74.49%
73
Documents Sharingtools (Google docs, etc)
72.45%
71
Presentation sharing (Slide share)
78.57%
77

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
123
Frequency of Use of Various Web 2.0 Technologies
The frequency of use of various Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge sharing can be seen
in table 5. Use rate is defined in percentage indicating that Social Networking sites were
used very frequently by 62.22% of librarians’ CoP, showing that Social Networking sites
are the most favorite Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge sharing among librarians’ CoP.
The second most favorite Web 2.0 technologies were Wikis (31.82%) and Document
Sharing tools (28.74%). While Podcasts/Audio Sharing (34.88%), Vertical Search
Engines (48.15%), Customized/Personalized Web Pages (47.56%), Mashups (37.08%)
and Mobile Computing (44.30%) were never used by many librarians CoP for knowledge
sharing.
Table 5 Frequency of use of various Web 2.0 Technologies for Knowledge Sharing
Very
frequently
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
Total
Blogs
9.57%
9
28.72%
27
32.98%
31
21.28%
20
7.45%
7
94
Micro Blogs
(Twitter)
4.49%
4
19.10%
17
32.58%
29
29.21%
26
14.61%
13
89
Wikis
3.41%
3
31.82%
28
29.55%
26
11.36%
10
23.86%
21
88
Really Simple Syndication (RSS)
63.27%
62
Vodcasts/Video sharing
42.86%
42
Instant Messaging
58.16%
57
Vertical search engines (For domain or subject specific
searches)
24.49%
24
Customized/Personalized WebPages for users (Like iGoogle)
26.53%
26
Mashups (Google maps, etc)
43.88%
43
Mobile Computing
34.69%
34
Total Respondents:
98

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
124
Very
frequently
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
Total
Social Networking
Sites (Face book,
MySpace, LinkedIn,
etc)
60.22%
56
29.03%
27
7.53%
7
2.15%
2
1.08%
1
93
Podcasts/Audio
sharing
4.65%
4
16.28%
14
32.56%
28
11.63%
10
34.88%
30
86
Social
bookmarking/Folkso
nomies (Delicious,
CiteUlike, etc)
2.27%
2
12.50%
11
23.86%
21
28.41%
25
32.95%
29
88
Photo sharing
(Flicker, Web shots,
Photo bucket, Picasa,
etc)
7.78%
7
20%
18
38.89%
35
21.11%
19
12.22%
11
90
Documents
Sharingtools
(Google docs, etc)
9.20%
8
28.74%
25
20.69%
18
13.79%
12
27.59%
24
87
Presentation sharing
(Slide share)
9.89%
9
26.37%
24
34.07%
31
14.29%
13
15.38%
14
91
Really Simple
Syndication (RSS)
9.76%
8
13.41%
11
25.61%
21
34.15%
28
17.07%
14
82
Vodcasts/Video
sharing
6.98%
6
24.42%
21
12.79%
11
37.21%
32
18.60%
16
86
Instant Messaging
16.28%
14
24.42%
21
20.93%
18
12.79%
11
25.58%
22
86
Vertical search
engines (For domain
or subject specific
searches)
11.11%
9
19.75%
16
12.35%
10
8.64%
7
48.15%
39
81
Customized/Personal
ized WebPages for
users (Like iGoogle)
6.10%
5
13.41%
11
17.07%
14
15.85%
13
47.56%
39
82
Mashups (Google
maps, etc)
2.25%
2
14.61%
13
24.72%
22
21.35%
19
37.08%
33
89
Mobile Computing
8.86%
7
18.99%
15
12.66%
10
15.19%
12
44.30%
35
79
Other web 2.0 tools
2.74%
2
8.22%
6
17.81%
13
12.33%
9
58.90%
43
73

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
125
Type of Knowledge Sharing Via Web 2.0
The data in table 6 show the information about the type of knowledge which librarians’
CoP share with their colleagues via Web 2.0 technologies. The findings were that most of
the librarians’ CoP (85.42%) shared ‘work experiences’, followed by sharing of
‘expertise from training or education’ by 71.88% of librarians. ‘Know how or tricks of
the job’ and ‘organizational knowledge about users, products, suppliers, and competitors’
were shared by 55.21% of librarians CoP for each. ‘Know why’ knowledge was shared
by least number of librarians’ CoP (23.96%). While Cao (2009), in a survey of librarians
in China, found that 91 percent respondents used Web 2.0 applications for personal
purposes not for official purpose.
Table 6 Frequency distribution of Type of Knowledge Sharing
Answer Choices
Responses
Work experiences
85.42%
82
Know-how or tricks of the job
55.21%
53
Expertise from training or education
71.88%
69
Know-what or factual knowledge
44.79%
43
Know-why or learning-by-studying (Understanding the
underlying logic)
23.96%
23
Internal reports (Official facts and figures in documented
form)
47.92%
46
Organizational knowledge about the users, products, suppliers
and competitors
55.21%
53
Total
96
Reasons for Use of Web 2.0 Technologies
Here in this part of the study, the respondents were asked that for what reasons they used
Web 2.0 technologies in knowledge sharing. The data in this regard is given in table 7,
indicating that 94.90% of the librarians’ CoP used Web 2.0 technologies due to ‘speed up
knowledge sharing’, 83.67% librarians’ CoP used it because of having ‘low cost or free’,
81.63% librarians’ CoP used it for the reason of ‘ease of use’, and 75.51% used it
because of ‘easier communication with far away colleagues’. Only 36.73% of librarians’
CoP used it due to ‘independence of organizational and geographical boundaries’. Similar

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
126
findings were reported by Hossenini and Hashempour (2012), indicating that the main
reasons of usage of Web 2.0 tools in knowledge sharing were ‘speed of usage’, ‘ease of
use’, and ‘personal knowledge management’.
Table 7 Frequency distribution of the Reasons for use of Web 2.0 Technologies
Answer Choices
Responses
Speed up knowledge sharing
94.90%
93
Ease of use
81.63%
80
Personal Knowledge management
58.16%
57
Easier communication with far away colleagues
75.51%
74
Finding answers for topical questions
59.18%
58
Receiving help and feedback from colleagues
51.02%
50
Having low cost or free
83.67%
82
Increased and round the clock interaction
58.16%
57
Stimulate collaboration among LIS professionals
43.88%
43
Make new contacts or friends
53.06%
52
Independence of organizational and geographic boundaries
36.73%
36
Total
98
Obstacles in the Effective use of Web 2.0 Technologies
The data given in Table 8 are the opinions of librarians ‘CoP about the factors, which
they considered as obstacles in the effective use of Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge
sharing. The findings showed that ‘Lack of trust in others to share information’ was a
major problem faced by 61.22% of the librarians’ CoP. The other obstacles included
‘Lack of quality in shared information’ faced by 56.12%, and ‘Lack of support of web 2.0
tools in the organization (Blockage/filtering) was faced by 51.02% of Librarians.
‘Inadequate hardware and software’ was the problem of only 29.59% of librarians’ CoP,

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
127
showing that 70% of the librarians do not have the problem of scarcity of hardwares or
softwares, which is encouraging as compared to the findings of Arif and Mahmood
(2010). They found in their study that a main problem in the adoption of Web 2.0
technologies was unavailability of computers and Internet facility in the libraries. While
Hossenini and Hashempour (2012) reported that ‘lack of knowledge in the usage of these
tools’ (64.9%), ‘lack of familiarity with these services’ (59.5%), and ‘inadequate
hardwares and softwares’(56.8%) were the main problems in the effective use of Web 2.0
technologies.
Table 8 Frequency distribution of obstacles in use of Web 2.0 Technologies
Answer Choices
Responses
Inadequate hardware and software
29.59%
29
Such tools are not used by other colleagues
32.65%
32
Lack of quality in shared information
56.12%
55
Lack of trust in others to share information
61.22%
60
Lack of colleagues’ familiarity with these tools
41.84%
41
Lack of knowledge in the usage of web 2.0 tools
44.90%
44
Inadequate awareness of the value of web 2.0 tools
41.84%
41
Lack of confidence in the usefulness of knowledge sharing
42.86%
42
Lack of support of web 2.0 tools in the organization
(Blockage/filtering).
51.02%
50
Create threats to data security
37.76%
37
Lack in archiving/preserving shared contents
34.69%
34
Create information overload
43.88%
43
Total Respondents:
98

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
128
Conclusions and Recommendations
The concept of knowledge sharing through the use of Web 2.0 technologies among
librarians’ CoP is still new. Although it is a part of our daily lives but most of the times it
is not realized. Many people perceive knowledge sharing as a burden, and afraid of losing
authority. Irrespective of libraries in many organizations it is thought to be a formal
procedure. Now there is a need to make knowledge sharing exciting for the personnel and
the easiest way is to understand the fact that it could be done through our daily informal
communication using the all pervasive facilitated technologies like Web 2.0. As the
findings of this study confirmed, that in general the familiarity, availability and use of
Web 2.0 technologies are increasing among librarians’ CoP in Pakistan. But there is a
need of proper guidance (education and training) and stimulation so that library
professionals in Pakistan could get maximum benefits of Web 2.0 technologies. In
addition to that in order to take full advantage of Web 2.0 technologies not only in
knowledge sharing but in the strengthening of CoP, there needs to be more active
participation from librarians. A more active useful participation including sharing their
experiences, expertise and resources can attract passive observers, who may be more
specialized professionals, practitioners and scholars. It will help in improving the quality
of shared knowledge as well as in increasing individual’s knowledge. Because the more
you share the more knowledge you gain.
References
Abram, S. (2004). Twenty reasons for teacher-librarians to love IM. MultiMedia &
Internet@Schools, 11(4), 16-18.
Abram, S. (2008). Social libraries – the librarian 2.0 phenomenon. Library Resources &
Technical Services, 52(2), 19-22.
Aharony, N. (2009). Web 2.0 use by librarians. Library & Information Science Research,
31, 29-37.
Ahmed, P., Lim, K. K., & Loh, A. (2002). Learning through knowledge management.
Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Arif, M., & Mahmood, K. (2010). The Changing Role of Librarians in the Digital World:
Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies in Pakistani Libraries. Paper presented at the 76th
IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Auster, E., & Chan, D. C. (2004). Reference librarians and keeping up-to-date: A
question of priorities. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44, 57-66.
Bailey, T. R., & Hendrickson, S. M. (2004). How to grow a community of practice.
Information Outlook, 8(3), 12-17.
Bar-llan, J. (2004). Blogarians: A new breed of librarians. Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 41, 119-128.

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
129
Bar-llan, J. (2007) The use of WeBlogs (Blogs) by librarians and libraries to disseminate
information. Information Research, 12(4). Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/12-
4/paper323.html
Barsky, E. (2006a). Introducing Web 2.0: RSS trends for health librarians. Journal of the
Canadian Health Libraries Association, 27, 7-8.
Barsky, E. (2006b). Introducing Web 2.0: WeBlogs and podcasting for health librarians.
Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 27, 33-34.
Barsky, E., & Giustini, D. (2007). Introducing Web 2.0: Wikis for health librarians.
Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 28, 147-150.
Barsky, E., & Purdon, M. (2006). Introducing Web 2.0: Social Networking and social
boomarking for health librarians. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries
Association, 27, 65-67.
Bell, L. (2005). From the shifted librarian to the lipstick and belly dancing librarians: An
introduction to Blogs in libraries. Illinois Libraries, 85(4), 12-13.
Benson, A., & Favini, R. (2006). Evolving Web, Evolving Librarian. Library Hi Tech
News, 23(7), 18-21.
Bianco, C. E. (2009). Medical librarians' uses and perceptions of social tagging. Journal
of the Medical Library Association, 97, 136-139.
Boxen, J. L. (2008). Library 2.0: A review of the literature. The Reference Librarian, 49,
21-34.
Breeding, M. (2007). Librarians face online social networks. Computers in Libraries,
27(8), 30-32.
Broady-Preston, J. (2009). Professional education, development and training in a Web
2.0 environment: A case study of the UK. New Library World, 110, 265-279.
Cao, D. (2009). Chinese Library 2.0: Status and development. Chinese Librarianship: An
International Electronic Journal, 27. Available at: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/
cl27cao.htm
Chu, S. K. (2009). Using Wikis in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 35, 170-176.
Chua, A. (2003). Knowledge Sharing: A Game People Play. Aslib proceedings: New
information perspectives, 55(3), 117-129.
Colon-Aguirre, M., Freberg, K. & Scrips, A. (2012). Potential Contribution of Social
Media to the Creation of Communities of Practice among Librarians: A content
analysis of the Social Networking Site Quora. In W. Riekert & I. Simon (Ed.),
BOBCATSSS 2012: 20th International Conference on Information Science.
Information in e-motion (pp. 94-97). Amsterdam: Hougeschool van Amsterdam,
Univerity of Applied Sciences.

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
130
Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer/Wiley.
Cross, R. L., & Parker, A. (2004). The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding
how Work Really Gets Done in Organizations: Harvard Business School Press.
Davies,E.(2005). Communities of Practice. In K.E.Fisher, S.Erdelez, & L.E.F.Mckechnic
(Eds.), Theories of information behavior. (pp.104-107). USA: Information Today Inc.
Deitering, A., & Bridgewater, R. (2007). Stop reinventing the wheel: Using Wikis for
professional knowledge sharing. Journal of Web Librarianship, 1(1), 27-44.
Denning, S. (2001). The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-era
Organizations: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Giustini, D., & Wright, M. (2009). Twitter: An introduction to microblogging for health
librarians. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 30, 11-17.
Goodwin, S., & Gola, C. H. (2008). Preparing staff for federated searching: A community
of practice approach. Internet Reference Services Quarterly,13, 245-259.
Hara, N. (2009). Communities of practice: Fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal
knowledge sharing in the work place. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hossenini, E. & Hashempour, L. (2012). The Status of Librarians’ Knowledge Sharing
by the Usage of Web2.0 Tools: A case study of central libraries of Tabriz
governmental universities. Communication in Computer and Information Science,
317, 128-137.
Jain, P. (2007). An empirical study of knowledge management in academic libraries in
East and Southern Africa. Library Review, 56, 377-392.
Laning, M., Lavallée-Welch, C., & Smith, M. (2005). Frontiers of effort: Librarians and
professional development Blogs. Journal of Library Administration, 43, 161-179.
Mahmood, K. (2008). Library web OPACs in Pakistan: an overview. Program:
Electronic Library and Information Systems, 42(2), pp. 137-149.
Maponya, P. M. (2004). Knowledge management practices in academic libraries: A case
study of the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Libraries. SCECSAL Proceedings,
125-148.
Milstein, S. (2009). Twitter for libraries (and librarians). Computers in Libraries, 29(5),
17-18.
Naslund, J., & Giustini, D. (2008). Towards school library 2.0: An introduction to social
software tools for teacher-librarians. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 55-67.
Nickols, F. (2003). Communities of practice: An overview. Available at:
http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/CoPOverview.pdf

PUTAJ – Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol.25, No.1-2 (Special Issue-Media Matters), 2017
131
Paquette, S. (2006). Communities of practice as facilitators of knowledge exchange. In E.
Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information
and knowledge management (pp. 68-73). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Pennell, S. (2008). Teacher librarians in professional learning communities. California
School Library Association Journal, 32(1), 25-26.
Powis, C. (2005). Infoteach: Developing an online community of practice of librarians
who teach. SCONUL Focus, 35, 70-72.
Rehman, A.U. & Shafique, F. (2011). Use of Web 2.0 and its Implications for Libraries:
Perceptions of Information Professionals in Pakistan. Library Philosophy and
Practice, 2011, 1-12.
Sharratt, M., & Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding Knowledge-Sharing in Online
Communities of Practice. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, 1(2), 187-
196.
Srikantaiah, T., & Koenig, M. E. D. (2008). Knowledge management in practice:
Connections and context. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.
Steiner, S. K., & Long, C. M. (2007). What are we afraid of? A survey of librarian
opinions and misconceptions regarding instant messenger. The Reference Librarian,
97, 31-50.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity:
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice: A survey of community-oriented
technologies. Report available at http://www.confluencecorp.com/articles/
communities_of_practice.pdf
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wiorogorska, Z. & Rehman, S. (2012). When Librarians Become Researchers: The
creation of international culture of knowledge sharing beyond the borders. Pakistan
Library & Information Science Journal, 43(2), 22-33.
Wu, W. G., & Li, J. (2007). RSS made easy. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 26,
37-50.