All Agents of Instruction & Communication: The Intersections between
Libraries, Archives and Museums via Social Media
Julia Gelfand
University of California, Irvine, USA

Anthony Lin
Irvine Valley College Library, USA

Abstract. Academic and Research Libraries have refreshed their mission in recent years. In the spirit of moreglobal insights and inclusion, adopting and utilizing the emerging technologies available to them, libraries havefocused on ways to promote information literacy, best practices in scholarly communications and make teaching
and learning the object of their outreach. This paper will explore how academic and research libraries are
implementing a range of social networking activities to augment their online presence through traditional websites
and launch new ways for their users to conduct and meet their information needs. Libraries are also extending
access with greater mobile optimized sites for Smartphones and other technologies that enhance information in
utilizing and managing data, images, audio and streaming media.

Introduction
This paper reinforces the alignments and partnerships between libraries, archives, museums. In reality, all three ofthese institutions may be a bit threatened as they compete for resources from their organizational nexus. Usually
they are not stand alone entities but instead dependent upon funding from government agencies, complex governing
boards of multiple stakeholders, and broad user constituencies. The contemporary challenges facing these
institutions point to a series of intersections that can inform future directions that will reinforce the value of each ofthese important cultural institutions and demonstrate how convergence stimulated by the potential for social
networking and media will be conduits of the next generation of libraries, archives and museums. This conference
addresses subthemes of how acquisitions and appraisal or the collection focus, space management, preservation andconservation practices and procedures, marketing and promotion, digitization, and disaster planning andmanagement of libraries, archives and museums lends to the understanding of sharing common understandings andbest practices that can identify synergies and promote interconnectedness.
Schools have teachers, libraries have librarians, archives have archivists, museums have curators and educators, andthe frontlines of each of these organizations are engaged in satisfying information queries by fulfilling an instruction
role. Museums may be more specialized than libraries, defined by scope and breadth. In each of these institutions,there are clearly codes and practices that define how things are done and training for positions in each varies but inrecent years one can see some convergence. Job descriptions may have different terminology and requirements, butfunctions appear to overlap. Museums may focus more on creativity and innovation while libraries tend to promote
information usage. “The joy of discovery” is present in each environment however libraries may be more concernedwith providing objectivity and teaching skills. In a recent report commissioned by Dell and Intel, two of the largest
global IT producers, they found:
The consumerization of information technology, defined as the migration of consumer technology andexperiences into enterprise computing environments is a well-recognized phenomenon around theworld. Across the globe, people are seeing the benefits of technology in enabling more flexible
working, discovering new ways of accomplishing tasks and enhancing productivity.1
What we conclude in our observations and literature review is that the more developed the environment andlocation, the greater the expectations are by the user communities to have not only a physical presence for these
institutions but to have take-away and perpetual access equally available. This report validated seven trends that weconclude will support and extend the collaborative work of libraries and museums in coming years:
1. Crowdsourcing – collaboration will dictate work environments
2. Productivity measured in outputs not by time – quality will prevail over quantity
3. Changes in the adoption of devices will dictate services and activities – employees will determine thechoice of products and technology provided
4. Intergenerational kiss and punch – digital natives will soon predominate workforces
5. Values versus rules – employees believe that they are trusted by employers yet pervasive technologies
allow for oversight and intrusive monitoring
6. IT management and leadership will have to try harder to keep and retain workforce with latest technology
applications and devices
7. Employee led innovation will be critical for the next generation workforce and new freedoms will achieved
with new business software and communication tools2
The 2002 release of the Impact of Evaluation of Museums, Archives and Libraries: Available Evidence Report
produced by Robert Gordon University suggests evidence of impact for these institutions in four categories: Social Impacts
Learning Impacts
Economic Impacts
Access and Barriers3
Findings indicate that the most compelling evidence of impact was “found to be in the area of personal
development…and can be expressed in terms such as:
Source of enjoyment and personal satisfaction
Acquisition of skills
Trying new experiences
Increased confidence and self-esteem
Changed or challenged attitudes
Developing creativity, cultural awareness, communication and memory
Providing support for educational courses, job seeking and workplace skills”4A decade later, we believe that many of these indicators are still valid and not surprisingly remain very important.
Social Communications
Communication prior to or following a library or museum visit can now be sustained in many different ways due todigital communication channels and linking to different elements of the experience. Today, most libraries andmuseums have detailed websites that are inviting and offer avenues of continuity to stay engaged, connected andinformed. The cultural and social participation is predicated on the methods of communication utilized. Museum
communication has its own predetermined structure, which we conclude can apply to libraries as well:One-to-One which translates into User-to-User
One-to-Many which translates to Museum-to-User (illustrated by webpages or blogs)
Many-to-Many which translates to Knowledge-to-Knowledge (wikis)5
Educational and Outreach Functions
The educational function usually described in academic libraries as information literacy or library instruction has astrong parallel role in museums. Since the archival and preservation mission is so central to museums as theyemphasize education and social inclusion, and are so committed to a legacy of providing and reinforcing a sense ofheritage, whether it is in reference to the national scope or one’s individual and family history, there are learning
functions and outcomes that are part of a common mission in both libraries and Hooper-Greenhill discusses fivegeneric learning outcomes (GLOs) as they relate to culture as:● an increase in knowledge and understanding● a change in attitudes or values● enjoyment, inspiration, creativity● action, behaviour, progression6
Hooper-Greenhill advances her theories with this summary statement, “The cultural GLOs have been developed toaccommodate and demonstrate the strengths of learning in cultural organisations; there is more emphasis on
inspiration and creativity than is normally to be found in GLOs in the formal sector, and there is increased scope for
identifying attitudinal and value change.7
The educational role of libraries has until recently been centered around two basic goals under the tenets of criticalthinking, while broadly conceptualizing information as being not only bibliographic but reflective of data, images,
and other literacies:
How to develop information seeking skills
How to evaluate information
In addition to information literacy, the academic community introduced other forms of literacy that have become
central to student independence and success, measured by different outcomes and among the thirty listed8 the ones
most relevant to the focus of librarians concerned with instruction and resources include:
Information literacy
Digital literacy
Financial literacy
Visual literacy
Data literacy
Graphicacy
Geographic literacy
Cultural literacy
Numeracy
Scientific literacy
Creative literacy
With academic libraries engaged in greater collaborations with public and school libraries, and the maturing of
distance education, the virtual role of libraries is increasingly significant. Access to remote collections is ofparamount priority to all library sectors, and with more digital content available and the diverse roles libraries play,this is an obvious direction libraries will be headed. The reference function performed in libraries combines the rolesof docent, teacher, concierge, advisor, and guide Museum docents have long been a feature of the museum culture
with independent training opportunities to drive the success of those educational outreach initiatives and thatvolunteer capacity is not common in even public libraries, much less academic libraries.
Museums for years have utilized tapes, headphones, scripts, and other immersive, interactive and emerging
technologies to guide visitors through exhibits and engage in learning exercises. Libraries and Archives haveadopted tutorials, instructional videos and finding aids customized to user needs to assist users in developing selfsufficiency and greater fluency in becoming efficient and effective library users. It is our assessment that we arestill at an early stage in some of these areas and can fully expect more integration among the technologies topromote a richer user experience and to reduce physical barriers such as being on the premises, opening hours, needto borrow resources, and the like. Cellular and smart phones, more ubiquity in social media will contribute toongoing thrusts in this area, especially in promoting access and content.
Collections, Acquisitions and Processing
Libraries and museums subscribe to the same commitment of acquiring what is supported by the collection
development policy, created and defined by the organization’s mission. Practices will vary due to budgets, staffing,
scope, local workflows and consortia practices. Museums do not usually provide access to holdings that are not partof either permanent or special exhibits, whereas libraries make nearly everything available. Metadata has become
increasingly critical in processing for indexing, retrieval, and organization. The “pleasure element” may be hard todiscern because museums contain more visual objects while the visual concept of images, illustration and text also
are significant in library collections. The following workflow concepts are carried out in all organizations, however
the extent to which they are practiced will vary:
Selection & Acquisitions – own vs subscribe or rely upon by borrowing from partnerso Role of gifts / donations
o De-selection / weeding / selling
Descriptive processing – cataloging & control, accessioning
Resource sharing
Lending practiceso Intellectual property & rights management
Cultural heritage
Digitization and evolving formats

E-commerce
Many libraries have turned to e-commerce as another method of generating revenue. In many cases, libraries havemarketed their most commonly known asset, print books, and have gone to sites such as E-bay, Half.com, andAmazon to sell used books to the general public and generate money from the sales of those books. 9 There are othersites such as LibraryBookSales.org or Better World Books that help libraries sell their books and give back money
in form of cash or vendor credit to purchase more current materials or use the funds towards some other purpose.10
In addition, this is an excellent opportunity to generate goodwill with the community as many libraries are hesitantto accept donations from users. With the book recycler or book seller in place, the library can accept any donations
and shift the burden of selling used books to the book recycler and also generate profit from the sales of those books.
Access and Membership
Several years ago, libraries, museums, and archives were unchallenged as cultural institutions for research andlearning. All three did not need to offer anything beyond their mission of serving as the center for educating theirusers about the collections. In the new millennium, libraries, museums, and archives are head-to-head with theprivate sector businesses that offer many conveniences and valued added services and commodities in addition to
focusing on the customer experience to make their visit both entertaining/fun and educational/informative.
Museums and Archives compete against movie theaters, amusement parks, zoos, and other cultural institutions andperformance venues and places that provide entertainment, escape and enrichment. Libraries compete withbookstores and coffee shops that offer lattes, wireless internet, and a comfortable meeting place for socialization,entertainment for customers/readers. In order to stay competitive, all three cultural institutions need to keep in mind
the total user experience that they provide.
Basic amenities and structure such as proximity to museum, the knowledge/background of the staff, parking
facilities, interest in and educational value of collections, admission prices, membership options, accompanying
services of museum like a café or restaurant, museum store, daycare provisions and ease of access for disabled andyoung children/toddlers when considering a visit to a particular museum vs. a zoo or amusement park areconsiderations that direct attendance decisions.11 Although a visit to a museum is not supposed to be like going toDisneyland, the experience of the museum patron does not diminish the fact that museums compete with otherentertainment options when the public decides what to do in their free time.
Although libraries and archives, in general, do not charge admission for the services that they provide, they too musttake into consideration the user experience for using the collections. Libraries must examine their collections bothprint and electronic, and consider the quality and hospitality of the facility (i.e. access to parking, hours of operation,
comfort levels, reducing safety hazards, etc.), and assume that the user rates the library collection as satisfying theirneeds prior to visiting. Libraries are investing heavily in converting print content to digital formats and this is veryclear in special collections units where access restrictions were the most severe. Today, those units demonstratebetter access by creating finding aids and scanning documents so that remote access is now available and growing.
Increasingly, libraries are coming up against their private sector competitors such as Starbucks that offer many
conveniences that libraries lack. Many bookstores have inside coffee shops such and allow their customers tobrowse their books for free before buying them. Not only do bookstores offer the convenience of read-before-youbuy access to books, but also combined with the amenities and conveniences of a Starbucks on top of that. Many
libraries are now starting to add coffee shops and cafes in addition to cultural events and programs to enrich the user
experience. Unfortunately, many libraries are still stuck in the mentality of library being a warehouse for printmaterials with arcane rules for food and beverages and little or no tolerance for conversation or public discourse.
Museums typically charge admission fees aligning themselves more as entertainment venues than as service
providers. Fees can be grouped into three categories, membership driven, paid admission days and free admission
days. Even though the museum may experience some loss on the free days, it gains in non-monetary means such asrecognition for providing access to a cultural experience that was typically reserved for the elite and well-to-do.
Online Practices
In an ideal world, librarians want to provide the greatest access to materials with the least amount of restrictions. In
the past, access and control of library materials was fairly simple, print materials could be loaned for a certain time
period determined by libraries. Library users were clear on borrowing privileges and restrictions placed on noncirculating and circulating library materials.
In today’s era of electronic databases, streaming video, and downloadable reports, the access boundaries andpolicies are complex. Librarians grapple with license agreements, terms of service, copyright clearance, and digitalrights management (DRM). In addition, access to electronic resources contains a byzantine set of rules andregulations governing each individual database or publication. For example, electronic resources for businessinformation are notorious for multiple “levels of access.” Certain business databases require dedicated access via
defined machines, individual registration by users, restricted access to specialized content others do not allow
downloading, sharing, copying or printing. It can be perceived that the role of the librarian has expanded frominformation provider and instructor to traffic cop and lawyer by enforcing license agreements while trying to
advocate for greater access at fair and affordable pricing.
If things are not already complicated with access rights, Digital Rights Management (DRM) takes the level ofcomplexity to new heights in access management. DRM is the gatekeeper for electronic library information. It
provides the following guidelines:
a method for the publisher to protect their intellectual property
the database vendor to discourage harvesting of information
allows access to information to the end user without making the experience too cumbersome in the process.
Concerns for access per the Fair Use doctrine must be recognized and protected by both museums and libraries.
The problem remains that each database vendor, ebook vendor, and publisher has a different system for access
control. At this time, there is currently no current standardized system for DRM, causing confusion for providers
and users alike. According to Eschenfelder there are two basic types of DRM available, soft restrictions and hard
restrictions. 12 Soft restrictions attempt to “discourage certain uses such as saving, printing…” 13 Some examplesof this are in many e-book packages that set page limits, download limits, or any limitations that would make it
difficult for the user from downloading the entire book, article, or document. Hard restrictions strictly prohibit
saving, printing, or emailing.

The table below outlines the different types of soft vs. hard restrictions.

One possible scenario in the future is that one dominant player in the market will determine the DRM standard.14
For example, Apple has dominated the music market through the popularity of the i-devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod, etc)

and also through iTunes. In much the same way, Amazon’s Kindle, Apple’s iPad, and Barnes and Noble Nook
could eventually determine the DRM standard for e-books.
Promotion and Publicity through Social MediaSocial media has changed the ways that libraries and museums have promoted themselves. The advent of Facebook,
LinkedIn, and other social networking sites have given libraries a new way of promoting their services and pushing
their events to users that could benefit from them.
Libraries represent the “provider” side of social media marketing by providing their events, classes, and services
through library promotion. Library users represent the “consumer” side by taking in the library promotions andservices and responding to the Facebook postings. Jacobson examined the perceived vs. actual use of Facebook inlibraries that represents the “provider” side by examining the actual Facebook contents of library pages. Her
findings are partly based on an earlier study done by Hendrix et al. in terms of how libraries actually use
Facebook.15

In contrast, a study by Aharony represents the “consumer” side by examining how users interacted with library
Facebook pages in the academic and public library environment.16 In both environments the research showed that
academic library Facebook posts, not surprisingly, tended to focus on content about the library itself (library
activities, library services, library general situation, and library collection). The second largest category foracademic libraries is in the miscellaneous category that included items such as congratulations, acknowledgements
and similar items. Finally, the third largest category for academic library Facebook posts focused on “Information
about” that were mainly things like academic events, general events, and campus events. The public libraries had afourth category that focused on posts about technological issues that was noticeably absent from the Academic
Libraries.

It is interesting to note from Jacobson that libraries primarily use Facebook for Announcements/Marketing and thedata from Ahrony’s study support that users typically respond to “library” Facebook postings about library eventsand other library announcements.17 Although it is probable that not all of the “library” category postings were about
library marketing campaigns, this was the largest category for Facebook posts for both academic and public
libraries.

Source: Ahrony, 2012

Source: Ahrony, 2012

Museums are also using social media for marketing purposes as well. In the UK, museums started a “Follow a
Museum Day” on Twitter that encouraged museum patrons to follow the Twitter feed for museums posting eventsand exhibitions.18 In short, based on recent studies, both libraries and museums can both benefit from greater use ofsocial media to reach out to more users and market their services.
Library/Museum as Publisher

Today, academic libraries are coming to the forefront of the publishing empire as they challenge whether they needto “buy back” scholarship that was generated on their campuses. By educating scholars about authors’ rights,
copyright and other forms of intellectual property, the scholarly communication movement is now robust andoffering opportunities for knowledge generation, new models of information sharing and the establishment ofsignificant disciplinary and maturing institutional repositories. As libraries digitize more of their collections,especially in Special Collections and Archives, the model of library publishing becomes more vital.
Museums have a long and distinguished history of publishing exhibition catalogs and finding aids. In addition, themerchandising element of museums with sophisticated shops that sell reminders that promote exhibit content inperpetuity and other assorted goods and products, is not only a revenue generating opportunity for museums, butplaces them in a creative and entrepreneurial business role. Increasingly, the museum shops have an online presence
and shoppers can peruse and purchase items having them packaged and mailed from afar. Curators contributeoriginal content to brochures and guides, librarians engage similarly with creating research pathfinders, course
guides, and contribute content to shared databases. These areas will predictably expand in the near future in each
institution directing remote users to have access to not only exhibit content, but to important resources.
Funding Issues – Funding Sources
In recent times, academic institutions and museums have experienced widespread budget cuts that affect the budget.
Libraries in particular have been hard hit and have been scrambling to find other sources of funding to make up forthe lost revenue. “An article in the May 2009 issue of American Libraries outlines budget reductions at Yale
University to be on the order of 10% for FY2009–2010; the University of Florida has posted plans to cut over $2.6
million from its library budget. . .”19 According to the Association of Research Libraries Source of Funds 20092010 survey, the majority of the ARL libraries, and most likely libraries in general, receive 75% to nearly all of theirfunding from the state of institution allocation. In rare cases, such as the University of Houston Libraries, receive
nearly half of their funding from student fees. This is more often than not the exception rather than the rule.20
Desperate times call for desperate measures and libraries have had to branch out into creative and non-traditional
areas of funding and fundraising in order to make up for the budget cuts imposed by the state or their own
institutions.

Cuillier and Stoffle point out that many libraries have tried funding from these major areas:
Annual Campaigns
Capital Campaigns
Friends Groups
Gifts, Endowments and Planned Giving
GrantsJoint Venture with Athletics
E-Commerce
Cafes
Library Credit Courses
Advertising
Rights and Reproductions
Fee based services and User Fees
Student Fees
Friends or Partners of the Library or Museum
Since 1925, the first Friends of the library group appeared at Harvard.21 Today, libraries across the nation havefriends groups to provide support to supplement funding for the library. However, it is estimated that “43.7% ofacademic libraries had a Friends group and that nearly a third of the groups were not successful at Fundraising.”22
Despite those statistics, there are several Friends groups that are successful. As cultural institutions, libraries andmuseums enjoy a revered place among individuals and families with large net worth. Lowman reports that there area variety of activities that the library engages in that contribute to a successful friends program: 23oDistinguished Guest LecturesoooReception to Honor Authors, Artists, Editors, and Composers associated with institution
Book Sales
Gala Events

Benefits include supporting new initiatives and successful ongoing programs. In an ideal situation, a Friends
program is a synergistic win-win partnership between the community and the library providing a steady stream ofincome and supporting library operations and increasing the collections. At worst, it’s a ball and chain obligationthat the library or museum is forced to house a collection that it has little use for and takes up valuable space inreturn for a large donation.24
Libraries compete with other academic programs on campus and suffer from the lack of alumni that traditionally
support academic programs or units. Privately funded institutions tend to also have greater freedom than public
supported institutions that may have more restrictions on how they raise money. In any case, the library must
commit to keep a friends of the library program sustainable by investing the proper time, resources, staffing, andmoney generating activities to make the return on investment a worth the venture. Museums have been more
successful at dedicating staff to direct programming for fundraising and support programs and by observation
conclude that together with largely volunteer efforts museums can scale fundraising events more successfully.
Grants
According to the ARL 2009-2010 Source of Funds Survey, some libraries can receive upwards of five percent of
their funding from grants. Since grants can come in different types, such as one-time funding or multiple year
funding, it is something that may not be ideal for day-to-day funding for the library, but may be better suited forspecial projects or one-time improvements.25 Too add to the complex nature of grant funding, grants based on
endowment funding tend to be more dependent on the economy rather than grants based on public funding.26 It is
certainly possible that endowment/foundation based grants could face the same cyclical difficulties as academic
institution funding and the competitive nature of grant funding could further increase as funding levels overall tend
to decrease. Today, the IMLS (Institute of Museums and Library Services) federal grant program is one of the best
and most competitive sources of funding for museums, archives and libraries in the United States. According to its
website, the IMLS is creating opportunities for:
Building 21st century skills – in conjunction with the MacArthur Fund to promote innovation – ie) learninglabs
Workforce development
Early learning
Building digital successConnecting to collections27
Joint Ventures
Some universities have created joint ventures between the university athletics department and the library.28
By diverting a percentage of income generated by athletic events to the library, collections and library services canbe enhanced. Examples of this may be contributing resources for study rooms and tutoring for athletes. However,this can become problematic and uneven depending on the athletic team performance in a given season, whenrevenues may vary.
Library cafes are still in vogue as books and caffeinated beverages go hand in hand. These operations are joint
ventures between the campus catering and the library, private enterprise (i.e. Starbucks and the library), or studentrun operations and the library. LaPointe mentions a joint venture between faculty, students, campus catering, andthe library to create a café in the library.29 In addition to serving coffee and lattes, the café has become a meeting
space, exhibition space for student artwork, and a venue for live entertainment. Often times library cafes produce a
positive income stream for the library, at the University of Arizona, Bookend Café located in the library, roughly
50% of the profits goes to the library.30 Café revenues do not always get allocated to the library budget.
Museums have had restaurants and cafes a lot longer than libraries. Some of the same rationale justifies thoseentities and they contribute to another reason that visitors come – they stay longer, meet up with friends and themuseum has another function it provides. Both institutions are also occasionally used for special events and can berented out for civic or campus entertainment or as a fee generating venue.
Theatres or mixed use auditoriums are also common environments in both libraries and museums. Media to
showcase enhancements of special exhibits is increasingly common both within the exhibit space and in a separate
room. Libraries have explored holding lectures, panels, discussions, concerts, showing films within their real estate
to demonstrate links to different media such as performance art and to compliment exhibits and explain collection
details.

Conclusions
Infotainment versus edutainment? This may be a simplistic and rhetorical question to pose, but hardly inappropriate
in the current social and cultural climate we face and experience. These challenging economic times lead andencourage organizations and institutions to partner and collaborate, reinforcing common missions and to learn fromone another. Research for this paper affirms the synergies, intersections and opportunities, and suggests that in theacademic sector, museums, archives and libraries have much to share. Like a decade ago, when it was common for
Information Technology and Library units to join together administratively because of their mutual commitments to
information, communication and technologies, it is now time to more formally recognize the alignments between
museums and libraries. Museums like libraries have a strong alliance in professional societies and we think theAmerican Association of Museums (http://www.aam.org), the Museum Educational Site Licensing Project(http://www.fmch.ucla.edu/MESL/mesl.htm), the Museum Computer network (http://www.mcn.edu), Educause(http://www.educause.org), Online Scholary Cataloging Initiative(http://www.getty.edu/foundation/funding/access/current/online_cataloging.html), and the American Library
Association (http://www.ala.org), for instance, have much in common. As Allen and Bishoff stated in a conference
paper, “…museum academic library partnerships lead to many positive experiences and pave the way for advancesthat are in the public good.”31 Higher Education and the global museum community have much in common and it isin each of their best interests to promote great opportunities for cooperation and collaboration and ways to learn
from one another. Social media due to its widespread adoption by younger generations; its impact on learning,
entertainment, and social exchange; and the opportunities for online commerce suggest that it is a viable series ofstrategies that should be employed in museums, archives and libraries to the extent that it is effective, cultivates andserves users and provides value. Perhaps the TwitterQuest that was attempted at Indiana University to promote
visits to the Campus Archives and other local museums by conducting a social media scavenger hunt will be tested
by other communities. 32

1Dell and Intell. (2011). The evolving workforce, Report #2: The workforce perspective,” December 11, 2011,
Executive Summary, 4. http://www.intel.com/content/.../dell-intel-evolving-workforce-report.html(viewed August 26, 2012)2

Ibid, 5-11.

3

Wavell, C., Baxter, G., Johnson, I., and Williams, D. (2002). Impact of evaluation of museums, archives andLibraries: Available Evidence Report. Aberdeen, Scotland, UK: Information Management, Business School, RobertGordon University, (http://www.resource.gov.uk/documents/id16rep.pdf)
4Ibid,78.

5

Russo, A., Watkins, J., Kelly, L., Chan, S. (2006). How will social media affect museum communication?
Proceedings of the Nordic Digital Excellence in Museums Conference, Oslo.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/6067/1/6067_1.pdf (viewed October 12, 2012)6

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2004). Measuring learning outcomes in museums, archives and libraries: The Learning
Impact Research Project (LIRP). International Journal of Heritage Studies 10, (2): 154.

7

Ibid., 164.

8

Kinds of Literacy. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?KindsOfLiteracy (viewed July 22, 2012)

9

Ibid

10

Lin, personal communication, 201211

Yucelt, U. (2000). Marketing Museums: An Empirical Investigation Among Museum Visitors. Journal Of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 8(3), 3
12

Eschenfelder, K. R. (2008). Every Library's Nightmare? Digital Rights Management, Use Restrictions, andLicensed Scholarly Digital Resources. College & Research Libraries, 69(3), 205-225.
13

Ibid

14

Schiller, K. (2010). A Happy Medium: Ebooks, Licensing, and DRM. Information Today, 27(2), 1–44.

15

Jacobson, T. B. (2011). Facebook as a Library Tool: Perceived vs. Actual Use. College & Research Libraries,
72(1), 79-90.
16

Aharony, N. (2012). Facebook use in libraries: an exploratory analysis. Aslib Proceedings, 64(4), 358-372.
doi:10.1108/00012531211244725
17

Jacobson, T. B. (2011). Facebook as a Library Tool: Perceived vs. Actual Use. College & Research Libraries,
72(1), 79-90.
18

Kidd, J. (2011). Enacting engagement online: framing social media use for the museum. Information Technology& People, 24(1), 64-77. doi:10.1108/09593841111109422
19

Lowman, S. S., & Bixby, M. D. (2011). Working With Friends Groups: Enhancing Participation ThroughCultivation and Planning. Journal Of Library Administration, 51(2), 209-220. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.540551
20

Cuillier, C., & Stoffle, C. J. (2011). Finding Alternative Sources of Revenue. Journal Of Library Administration,51(7/8), 777-809. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.601276
21

Hood, J. M. (1991). Library friends. In B. I. Dewey (Ed.), Raising money for academic
and research libraries: A how-to-do-it manual for librarians (pp. 11–26). New
York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
22

Cuillier, C., & Stoffle, C. J. (2011). Finding Alternative Sources of Revenue. Journal Of Library Administration,51(7/8), 777-809. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.601276
23

Lowman, S. S., & Bixby, M. D. (2011). Working With Friends Groups: Enhancing Participation ThroughCultivation and Planning. Journal Of Library Administration, 51(2), 209-220. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.540551
24

D'Andraia, F., Fitzpatrick, J., & Oliver, C. (2011). Academic Libraries and Friends Groups: Asset or Liability?.
Journal Of Library Administration, 51(2), 221-230. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.540553
25

26

Landau, H. (2010). Winning Grants: A Game Plan. American Libraries, 41(9), 34-36.

Katja Lindqvist (2012): Museum finances: challenges beyond economic crises,
Museum Management and Curatorship, 27:1, 1-1527
http://www.imls.gov/ (viewed October 16, 2012)

28

Cuillier, C., & Stoffle, C. J. (2011). Finding Alternative Sources of Revenue. Journal Of Library Administration,51(7/8), 777-809. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.601276
29

Lapointe, L. M. (2006). Coffee anyone?. College & Research Libraries News, 67(2), 97-99.

30

Cuillier, C., & Stoffle, C. J. (2011). Finding Alternative Sources of Revenue. Journal Of Library Administration,51(7/8), 777-809. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.601276
31

Allen, N. and Bishoff, L. (2001). Academic library museum collaboration: I’m ok, you’re ok. Proceedings of theTenth ACRL National Conference, Denver, CO: 68.
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/pdf/allen.pdf (viewed August 31, 2012)32

TwitterQuest and the Alliance of Bloomington Museums & Archives
https://blogs.libraries.iub.edu/iubarchives/2012/04/02/twitterquest/ (viewed October 15, 2012)
The authors acknowledge the contributions of San Jose State University Library Intern, Laine Thielstrom inreviewing this submission.