Social software and libraries:
a literature review from the
LASSIE project
Jane Secker
Centre for Learning Technology, London School of Economics, London, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide an overview of the published literature and current use of
social software by libraries primarily in the UK and USA.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper’s approach is a literature review and desk research.
Findings – Libraries are experimenting considerably in this area and many Web 2.0 applications
have been developed by libraries and librarians over the past few years. These tools offer the potential
to enhance library services.
Research limitations/implications – The area is one of rapid change, so the findings will date
quickly.
Practical implications – An overview of which technologies are being used most widely and might
offer the most potential for library staff considering experimenting in this area.
Originality/value of paper – Web 2.0 is an area with which many library staff need to become
familiar quickly. This paper provides a useful overview of the topic.
Keywords Social interaction, Literature, Libraries, United Kingdom, Computer networks,
Communication technologies
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
LASSIE (Libraries and Social Software in Education) was a nine-month project,
starting in March 2007, funded by the University of London Centre for Distance
Education Teaching and Research Awards. The project explored new developments in
web technology commonly referred to as social software (or Web 2.0) and how these
might be used to enhance library provision for distance learners.
This article summarises findings from part of the project literature review (Secker,
2008) which provides an overview of social software and how this is impacting on the
library community. The review also examined current issues in distance learning and
libraries as a social space, however these topics are not covered in this paper. The
review was undertaken at the outset of the project to inform the project team and
provide context, definitions and a clearer understanding of previous research in this
field. A draft report was published on the project web site (http://clt.lse.ac.uk/Projects/
LASSIE.php) in July 2007 and this has been updated to take into account literature
published between July and December 2007. The review highlights some examples of
how different types of social software are being used in the library community,
recognising that much of this work is currently experimental. The review is also
written at a time when the pace of change is very rapid, therefore it can only hope to
provide a snapshot of what is occurring up until December 2007. The literature review
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0033-0337.htm
Social software
and libraries
215
Received 7 February 2008
Revised 1 April 2008
Accepted 4 April 2008
Program: electronic library and
information systems
Vol. 42 No. 3, 2008
pp. 215-231
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0033-0337
DOI 10.1108/00330330810892640

informed the development of the project and the selection of pilot technologies which
were explored further in five case studies.
In the context of this project, the process of undertaking a literature review was
itself a valuable research exercise, as it demonstrated the challenges faced when doing
research in a Web 2.0 world. Gilster highlighted this challenge in a publication arguing
that:
Until the tools become available, the thorough scholar will supplement conventional library
research with the search engines that mine the intersection of content and communication
(Gilster, 2006, p. 49).
By this Gilster arguably meant tools such as news readers (such as Google Reader –
www.google.com/reader/) and internet search engines, which help us to gather together
the literature and supplement the references found in traditional bibliographic
databases such as LISA, LISTA and ERIC. In undertaking this literature review on
social software, the project team have developed new research skills and tried out new
tools, as we are keen to use social software wherever possible to facilitate our research.
However, it remains a challenge to stay abreast of developments in this fast moving
field and the pace of technological developments is such that inevitably this literature
review will date quickly. The LASSIE project officially finished in December 2007
however progress can also be tracked via the project blog which is currently still
available at: http://elearning.lse.ac.uk/blogs/socialsoftware/.
2. What is social software?
LASSIE decided early on to focus on the term “social software” to describe the
development of new tools and services that are changing the way people use the internet,
making it easier to collaborate, communicate and share information. This concept is
more commonly (and somewhat controversially) often described as Web 2.0, however we
preferred the term “social software” as it seems to describe the phenomena more
accurately. It encompasses a huge range of tools (which are briefly discussed later) but
the features many of them share are that they are hosted remotely, they facilitate sharing
and communication, they allow users to add content and they are easy to use.
The phrase Web 2.0 was reputedly coined in 2004 by O’Reilly Media, although it
described technologies that had been developed earlier in the1990s. Social software is
not really software as such, but internet services that could ultimately replace desktop
software. It is about using the internet as a platform to run software and services rather
than a desktop PC, so most software tools are hosted remotely and can be accessed
from anywhere with an internet connection. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia (which
is itself social software) describes much of the background and definition of the term
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0).
However, the term Web 2.0 has led to fierce debates between individuals such as
Tim O’Reilly and Tim Berners-Lee, the “inventor” of the World Wide Web.The debate
largely centres on Tim Berners-Lee’s dislike of the term Web 2.0, as he argues that the
phenomena we are experiencing are simply doing what he always envisaged the web
would do: allowing people to collaborate and communicate. He also argues that many
supposed “Web 2.0” technologies have existed since the beginnings of the internet. He
maintains that the development of the “Semantic web” is far more significant. The
Semantic web is about expressing web content not simply in natural language, but also
PROG
42,3
216