997

Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services: 
Attitudes and Concerns of Academic Librarians 
and University Students in Ghana

Bright Kwaku Avuglah, Christopher M. Owusu-Ansah, Gloria 
Tachie-Donkor, and Eugene Baah Yeboah*

This study surveyed librarians’ and students’ attitudes, perceptions, and concerns on 
privacy in Ghanaian universities with the aim of seeking a better alignment of their 
perspectives in the online library context. The study adapted and applied the instru-
ment developed by Zimmer that assessed attitudes and practices of librarians in the 
United States on privacy rights and protecting patrons’ privacy in the library.1 The 
study found that, between librarians and students in Ghanaian universities, there was 
a need for greater control over their personal data and a need for ethical responsibil-
ity on the part of data collecting online library agents; both groups expressed dislike 
for state censorship and corporate monopoly over their personal data. However, 
despite their positive attitude about the strong role of librarians in guaranteeing 
their personal data, a significant number of them demonstrate little faith in librar-
ians to actualize the protection of their personal data. Finally, privacy attitudes and 
concerns of academic librarians were noted to align with those of university students 
in Ghana. Among others, it was recommended that Ghanaian academic librarians 
integrate privacy education and awareness creation in their universities, emphasizing 
the need to make informed online decisions and exposing potential repercussions 
of their decisions while using online library and digital resources.

Introduction
The issue of patron privacy and confidentiality is core to the ethics, norms, and traditions of 
libraries.2 This is emphasized by a number of professional and international library organiza-
tions such as International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) and the 
African Library and Information Associations and Institutions (AfLIA) through statements and 
other official instruments.3 Libraries have long been involved in promoting and addressing 
privacy concerns of their patrons even before the digital revolution.4 Whether by nondisclosure 

Bright Kwaku Avuglah is Principal Library Assistant, University of Ghana; email: bkavuglah@ug.edu.gh. Christo-
pher M. Owusu-Ansah is Senior Assistant Librarian, University of Education, Winneba, Mampong campus; and 
Research Fellow, Department of Information Science, University of South Africa; email: cmfum@uew.edu.gh. Gloria 
Tachie-Donkor is Junior Assistant Librarian; email: gtachie-donkor@ucc.edu.gh. Eugene Baah Yeboah is Principal 
Library Assistant, University of Cape Coast; email: eugene.yeboah@ucc.edu.gh. ©2020 Bright Kwaku Avuglah, 
Christopher M. Owusu-Ansah, Gloria Tachie-Donkor, and Eugene Baah Yeboah, Attribution-NonCommercial 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) CC BY-NC.



998  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

of borrowers’ identities,5 or short-term data retention policies and anonymous browsing of its 
collections,6 libraries assert their role as vital institutions that guarantee the right to freedom 
of thought and expression in and toward a free society.7 Tummon and McKinnon note that, 
even in the face of the rapidly evolving digital landscape where the blurring of boundaries 
of acceptable information-sharing practices makes data and privacy protection extremely 
complicated,8 libraries and librarians maintain their advocacy for privacy as a sacred and 
inalienable right of patrons, reinforcing their position as privacy champions.9

This descriptive survey tracks the alignment between the attitudes, perceptions, and con-
cerns of academic librarians and university students on privacy from the perspective of three 
top Ghanaian universities, namely the University of Ghana (UG), the University of Cape Coast 
(UCC), and the University of Education, Winneba (UEW). Drawing on empirical evidence, this 
study extends our understanding on privacy and confidentiality in the worldviews of both 
librarians and students from a unique African cultural perspective, given that the concept of 
privacy was often a Western mantra.10

Literature Review
Many modern libraries endeavor to incorporate a number of technology tools and services 
into their operations to improve work efficiency, service delivery, and user experience. These 
technologies range from commercial and open access academic databases, other research tools 
such as reference managers and plagiarism software, and Web 2.0 tools and applications such 
as Social Networking Sites (SNS), video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, chats, and folksonomies. 
Many of these technologies have the capability to aggregate users’ personal information and 
feedback and track online behaviors.11 Despite the numerous benefits and possibilities that 
this affords,12 a new conundrum arises in balancing the benefits with the privacy consequences 
they pose for both librarians and their patrons.13

As a point of departure, systems for safeguarding data and information exchanges over 
these platforms by the library and their users are not controlled by the library but by third-
party partners and institutions whose business models revolve around the wealth of personal 
details in their custody,14 and what they do with that wealth of data is not exactly known 
to the library. Seemingly innocuous and vague information shared by or about users can be 
mapped to other anonymized data from other sources to reidentify and create a story around 
and about the users15 in terms of their intellectual activities, online behaviors, interests, and 
tendencies or even track their physical movement.16 Givens notes that such surveillance, no 
matter how harmless it appears, is a breach of privacy that can impede the free exchange of 
ideas, hinder information seeking, critical thinking, and the development of new ideas and 
opinions.17

Previous studies about online privacy issues in the library show a growing interest in 
privacy rights and patron data confidentiality.18 Attitudinal studies on the subject, though 
very few, have sought to explore the perspective of both librarians and their student users. 
For instance, the studies conducted by Tummon and McKinnon in Canada and Zimmer in 
the United States found that librarians were very concerned about online and patron privacy 
and that they recognize the need for protecting and educating their patrons as an imperative 
responsibility. Farkas noted that this educational role of librarians is extremely valuable espe-
cially for younger patrons who often do not appreciate the long-term implications of careless 
information-sharing practices online.19 Unlike their American counterparts, however, most 



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    999

Canadian librarians lack knowledge about their own institutional policies and procedures 
and are not confident that they are doing their very best in protecting patron privacy.20

When Johns and Lawson surveyed undergraduate students about their knowledge 
and perceptions of online privacy issues in 2005 at Iowa State University (ISU), they 
found that the students considered online privacy to be very important to them as well. 
They expected the library to only collect their personal data with their consent and with 
a clearly defined purpose and life span. They also did not want the library to share their 
personal information without their knowledge and expected the library to educate them 
about privacy issues, even though, regrettably, the library was not proactive in carrying 
out this responsibility.21

Siemens, Althaus, and Stange studied students’ perceptions of privacy within the context 
of e-learning environments.22 Their results show that students had concerns about sharing too 
much information about themselves on such platforms and feared their opinions might be 
misrepresented. Students also lacked adequate knowledge about privacy issues including their 
institutional policies and legal obligations regarding the privacy, confidentiality, and security 
of students’ personal data but are unlikely to read these policies even if they were made read-
ily available to them. This last point is symptomatic of the privacy paradox phenomenon—a 
discrepancy between privacy attitudes and behaviors—where people express concerns about 
their privacy yet undertake very little action to protect their personal data.23 

Overall, the sentiments students expressed in both studies resonate with those from librar-
ians: however, the palpable gaps in librarians’ own practices and the perceptions of students 
about their libraries’ support is instructive. These studies were carried out in different loca-
tions and timelines and do not provide the strongest picture on privacy attitudes, concerns, 
and practices in any of the study locations. Combining the opinions of both librarians and the 
students they serve within the same study will provide a fairer picture of the current state of 
affairs and better alignment between recommended strategies for libraries and user needs.

Problem Statement
Compared to developed regions, studies on privacy attitudes and concerns within the library 
and information science (LIS) landscape in Africa and Ghana particularly are very scarce. Even 
in the developed regions, such studies focused on either librarians24 or users.25 Our search of 
the literature did not reveal any studies that have examined the attitudes, perceptions, and 
concerns of both librarians and user communities within the same study, which might yield 
better alignment between recommended strategies for libraries and user needs. This study 
focuses on the alignment issues by comparing data on librarians’ attitudes and concerns to 
those of their users. The insight gained from this study can raise awareness about such mis-
alignment for practitioners to proffer solutions that are fit for purpose. 

Furthermore, while the studies by Zimmer and Tummon and McKinnon are great attempts 
to gauge librarians’ practices and attitudes on issues of privacy in online library environments, 
Jeske, Intahchomphoo, Landriault, and Bioni asserted that such practices and attitudes are 
susceptible to cultural differences, as was confirmed in both studies.26 For instance, Ghana’s 
data protection laws and the LIS landscape are generally different from what persists in most 
developed countries. Understanding the attitudes and practices of librarians in Ghana along-
side their user communities can help contextualize the role of libraries in protecting patron 
privacy and promoting privacy literacy among their users. The outcome of this study can 



1000  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

provide guidance for developing library policies, guidelines, and training programs toward 
improving patrons’ privacy literacy and informed online decisions.27

To this end, the purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes and concerns on privacy 
issues in Ghanaian academic and research library space. The specific objectives of the study, 
and associated hypotheses, were to:
1.	 Assess the attitudes of Ghanaian librarians and university students toward the issue of 

privacy in online library environments.
2.	 Identify the concerns of Ghanaian librarians and university students about privacy in 

online library environments.
3.	 Explore any differences in attitudes and concerns between Ghanaian librarians and uni-

versity students.
3.1.	H1 There are no significant differences in the privacy attitudes and concerns of librar-

ians and students. 
H0 There are significant differences in the privacy attitudes and concerns of librarians 
and students.

Methods and Instruments 
This study constituted a survey, and the data collection instrument used was adapted from 
the study by Zimmer that assessed attitudes and practices of librarians in the United States 
on privacy rights and protecting patrons’ privacy in the library.28 To ascertain the reliability 
of the instrument, two steps were taken. First, the questions were adapted to the Ghanaian 
context by expunging questions relating to the legal system of the United States. Some of the 
questions on general attitudes and concerns were also excluded. A few new questions were 
added to cater for local context, and some questions were also modified. Where a new question 
was added, these were marked by a plus (+), with modified questions in the original instru-
ment marked with an asterisk (*). Second, the questionnaire was then pretested in two of the 
public universities, with a total of 20 respondents comprising 15 students and 5 librarians. 
Feedback from the pretest was incorporated into the final questionnaire. 

The resulting questionnaire comprised nine close-ended questions. The questionnaire 
was in three sections. Section A comprised demographics (see table 2); Section B, respondents’ 
general attitudes to privacy in online environments (see table 5); and Section C, respondents’ 
concerns with privacy in online environments (see table 6).

Respondents were limited to only three major public universities in Ghana. These are 
as follows: University of Cape Coast (UCC), University of Education, Winneba (UEW), and 
University of Ghana (UG). The institutions included in this study had libraries with an online 
presence.

TABLE 1
Response Rate of Students

Institution Student 
Population

Sample 
Size

Returned 
Questionnaire

Invalid Valid 
Questionnaires

Valid Response 
Rate (%)

UG 38,000 381 289 3 286 75
UCC 74,720 383 181 3 178 46.5
UEW 61,711 382 282 20 262 68.6
Total 174,431 1,146 752 26 726 63.4



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1001

The survey was conducted during the period of January 15, 2019, and March 30, 2019. 
The survey was administered in-person to respondents across the three university cam-
puses. A nonprobability convenience sampling method was used to recruit respondents 
for the study. A sample calculator was used to determine the sample size of the student-
respondents, and a self-selective method was used to recruit librarian-respondents across 
the three institutions.

In all, 74 librarians and 752 students responded to the questionnaire across the three institu-
tions surveyed. In 26 cases of the student responses, a significant portion of the questionnaire 
was left unanswered; as a result, these were excluded, culminating in a final valid response 
of 726 for students. This yielded a response rate of 63.4 percent for students (see table 1). 

Method of Data Analysis
The data was coded and entered into SPSS 24 for analysis. For the sections on education, 
some respondents wrote Degree or HND as “Other” level of education, even though these 
had been catered for in the response options. To standardize the data, we input the appro-
priate level of education instead of “Other.” Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U Test 
were run on the data to ascertain privacy attitudes and concerns of librarians and students, 
including whether or not there were significant differences in the pattern of responses of the 
two groups of respondents.

Results
Demographics
The demographic data as presented in table 2 shows that most of the librarians who responded 
to the questionnaire worked in the Collection and Technical Services (35.1%), Public Services 
(33.8%), and Digital Initiatives (14.9%) sections of the libraries. Members of staff in these 
units provide some services over online systems and electronic platforms and their percep-
tion, attitude, and concerns about privacy can influence their practice of protecting patron 
privacy. A majority of them were senior staff (51.4%), and the fewest were senior members 
(17.6%). Employees in public universities in Ghana fall under one of three categories: senior 
members—a management/professional level role with a minimum qualification of master’s 
degree in LIS; senior staff—a paraprofessional/middle-level role that also requires a university-
level diploma or a bachelor’s/honors degree in LIS; junior staff—a clerical/support role with 
educational qualification lower than a university-level diploma.

TABLE 2
Demographic Data

Librarians (N = 74)
Job Description n %
Administration 9 12.2
Public Services (Liaison/Subject Specialist/Reference/Instruction) 25 33.8
Collection and Technical Services (Acquisitions/Cataloguing/e-Resources/Systems) 26 35.1
Digital Initiatives (Digitization/Scholarly Communications/User Experience) 11 14.9
Archives/Special Collections 3 4.1
Rank 
Junior Staff 23 31.1



1002  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

In terms of experience, most of them had been practising librarians for more than 5 years 
(66.2%). The education background distribution of the librarians are as follows: 6 of them had 
a PhD, 23 had an MPhil or master’s, 31 indicated they had a bachelor’s degree, 9 had a Higher 
National Diploma (HND) or an ordinary diploma, 3 had the West African Senior Secondary 
Certificate Examination (WASSCE; formerly known as the Senior Secondary School Certificate 
Examination [SSSCE], a standard test for Senior High Schools in Ghana and a prerequisite for 
entry into universities and colleges), or the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE: 
also a standard test for junior high school students in Ghana and a prerequisite for entry into 
a senior high or vocational school in Ghana), while two respondents indicated “Other” but 
did not indicate what qualification they had. Also, a majority of the students who responded 
to the questionnaire were undergraduate students (86.2%): 9.4 percent of them were studying 
for a master’s degree and 3.7 percent of them were studying for a PhD. Less than 1 percent 
of the students indicated “Other” for their level of education but did not indicate the level of 
education they had.

Attitudes toward Online Library Privacy 
The detailed results on general privacy attitudes of librarians and students are presented as 
a comparative table in the appendices (see table 5). The analysis indicates that most of the re-
spondents (75.7% of librarians and 86.5% of students) agree or strongly agree that individuals 

TABLE 2
Demographic Data

Senior Staff 38 51.4
Senior Member 13 17.6
Level of Experience
Less than 1 year 13 17.6
1–5 years 12 16.2
6–10 years 22 29.7
11–15 years 11 14.9
More than 15 years 16 21.6
Educational Level 
PhD 6 8.1
MPhil/Master’s 23 31.1
Bachelor’s Degree 31 41.9
HND/Diploma 9 12.2
WASSCE/SSSCE/BECE 3 4.1
Other 2 2.7

Students (N = 726)
Educational Level
Undergraduate (Diploma/Bachelor’s) 626 86.2
Graduate (MA/MSc/MPhil) 68 9.4
Postgraduate (PhD) 27 3.7
Other 5 .7



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1003

should be able to control who sees their personal information, and half of the respondents (50% 
of librarians and 50.4% of students) agree or strongly agree that third-party firms are collecting 
too much personal information in online library environments. A majority of the respondents 
(71.6% of librarians and 80.9% of students) agree or strongly agree that libraries should never 
share personal information, circulation records, or internet use records with third parties un-
less it was authorized by the individual or by the court. Similarly, 81.1 percent of librarians 
and 85.2 percent of students agree or strongly agree that, when people give their personal in-
formation to a company for a specific purpose, the company should only use the information 
for that purpose. Just over half of the respondents (52.7% of librarians and 54.4% of students) 
agree or strongly agree that librarians are doing all they can to prevent unauthorized access 
to students’ personal information and circulation records. Respondents also showed a posi-
tive attitude toward the role of libraries in privacy education. Most of the respondents (77% 
of librarians and 83.8% of students) agree or strongly agree that librarians should play a role 
in educating students on the potential privacy rights risks resulting from using the internet.

Again, most of the respondents (74.3% of librarians and 80.8% of students) agree or strongly 
agree that search engines and social networking sites should prominently display policies on 
how a user’s information is treated. Also, 50 percent of librarians and 46.4 percent of students 
agree or strongly agree that search engines are sharing their personal information and search 
records with companies, and 28.4 percent of librarians and 27.8 percent of students disagree 
or strongly disagree with this statement. Only 18.9 percent of librarians and 31.5 percent of 
students agree or strongly agree that they don’t mind if the government knows what they’ve 
been reading. On the contrary, 54 percent of librarians and 52.5 percent of students disagree 
or strongly disagree with that statement. Likewise, only 13.5 percent of librarians and 20.6 
percent of students agree or strongly agree that they don’t mind if people can view their per-
sonal information on the internet because they had nothing to hide; conversely, 78.3 percent 
of librarians and 68 percent of students disagree or strongly disagree with that statement.

On whether individuals must be duly notified by the library about any unauthorized 
access or breach of their personal information contained in library systems, 66.2 percent of 
librarians and 81.3 percent of students agree or strongly agree. Likewise, 70.2 percent of 
librarians and 77.8 percent of students agree or strongly agree that third-party firms must 
duly notify individuals about any unauthorized access or breach of their personal informa-
tion contained in their systems. Also, 48.7 percent of librarians and 65.3 percent of students 
agree or strongly agree that individuals should be able to request and be given access to any 
personal data in the custody of the library, but 39.2 percent of librarians and 23.5 percent of 
students disagree or strongly disagree with this statement. Whereas 58.1 percent of librarians 
and 57 percent of students agree or strongly agree that individuals should be able to access 
any personal data held by social networking sites, 36.5 percent of librarians and 28.3 percent 
of students disagree or strongly disagree with this statement.

Finally, with respect to self-censoring their own search and reading habits to avoid being 
misunderstood, the responses among librarians were closely divided, with 27 percent saying 
they “Agree” or are “Neutral” on the practice; 24.3 percent said they disagree, 12.2 percent 
strongly agree, and 9.5 percent strongly disagree. For the students, the majority (32.2%) were 
neutral on the practice, 29.3 percent agree, 16.7 percent disagree, 13.5 percent strongly agree, 
and 8.3 percent strongly disagree. This means that, while most of the librarians (39.2%) and 
students (42.8%) agree or strongly agree to self-censor their search and reading habits, still 



1004  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

a significant number of them are neutral and disagree with the practice. This may be due to 
possible ambivalence toward online privacy issues among both categories of respondents.

Privacy Concerns in Online Library Environments 
The results presented in table 6 (see appendices) provide additional information on privacy 
attitudes of respondents and indicate their level of concern on a range of online privacy issues. 
When asked if they were concerned about privacy while using the internet, nearly all the re-
spondents (97.3% of librarians and 91.7% of students) indicated that they were very concerned 
or somewhat concerned. The results also show that 83.8 percent of librarians and 79.9 percent 
of students said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned about family, friends, and 
other acquaintances getting personal information about them and their web activities. Similarly, 
85.1 percent of librarians and 83 percent of students were either very concerned or somewhat 
concerned about businesses and people whom they do not know getting personal information 
about them and their web activities. When asked about the government and law enforcement 
getting personal information about them and their web activities, 81.1 percent of librarians and 
80 percent of students said they were either very concerned or somewhat concerned. 

The analyses also show that most of the respondents (87.8% of librarians and 89.8% of 
students) were very concerned or somewhat concerned about online identity theft. As ex-
pected, nearly all the respondents (91.9% of librarians and 88.1% of students) said they were 
either very concerned or somewhat concerned about the security of personal information 
given to online companies. When asked whether they were concerned about providing too 
much personal information when joining a social networking site, most respondents (86.5% of 
librarians and 79.8% of students) said they were either very concerned or somewhat concerned. 
Most of the respondents (87.9% of librarians and 86.1% of students) indicated that they were 
very concerned or somewhat concerned about people they do not know obtaining personal 
information about them from their online activities. Likewise, 86.5 percent of librarians and 
83.1 percent of students said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned about who 
might access their web browsing history from their computer. On how they feel about search 
engines tracking their keywords and sites visited, 75.7 percent of librarians and 81.7 percent 
of students indicated they were either very concerned or somewhat concerned.

Furthermore, a majority of the respondents (78.4% of librarians and 80.5% of students) said 
they were very concerned or somewhat concerned about the use of web cookies or other means 
of tracking their visits to other websites. Likewise, 82.4 percent of librarians and 80.4 percent of 
students indicated that they were very concerned or somewhat concerned about cell phone pro-
viders tracking their physical location. Similarly, when asked about how they feel about mobile 
and social networking applications collecting information about their activities online or physical 
location, 85.2 percent of librarians and 81.1 percent of students said they were either very concerned 
or somewhat concerned. Finally, 89.2 percent of librarians and 84.7 percent of students indicated 
that they were very concerned or somewhat concerned about other people uploading photos or 
videos of themselves to the internet where they are clearly recognizable without their permission.

When asked about how respondents felt about online sites tracking webpages they 
visited, 36.5 percent of librarians said they consider it to be harmful, 35.1 percent felt it was 
both beneficial and harmful, 16.2 percent felt it was beneficial, 4.1 percent felt it was neither 
beneficial nor harmful, and 8.1 percent said they did not know. For the students, 33.3 percent 
felt it was harmful, 31 percent said it was both beneficial and harmful, 11.2 percent felt it was 



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1005

beneficial, 9.6 percent said it was neither beneficial nor harmful, and 14.9 percent said they 
don’t know (see table 3).

Response Patterns by Respondent Type 
We used the 5-point Likert scale to measure the respondents’ privacy attitudes across 15 ques-
tions. Mann-Whitney U Test was run to determine whether there are significant differences in 
the ratings of privacy attitudes of librarians and students. With the significance level (p-value) 
set at 0.05, the analysis shows that there were significant differences in the response pattern 
for librarians and students in 5 of the 15 questions (see table 4); the null hypothesis for these 

TABLE 3
Online Tracking

Librarians Students Total
N % N % N %

If an online site did track the 
webpages you have visited, do you 
think that would be…

beneficial to you 12 16.2 81 11.2 93 11.6
harmful to you 27 36.5 242 33.3 269 33.6
both 26 35.1 225 31.0 251 31.4
neither 3 4.1 70 9.6 73 9.1
don’t know 6 8.1 108 14.9 114 14.3
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

TABLE 4
Hypothesis Test Summary

Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
3 The distribution of Libraries should never share personal 

information, circulation records, or internet use records with 
third parties unless it has been authorized by the individual 
or by a court of law is the same across categories of 
Respondent Type.

Independent-
Samples Mann-
Whitney U Test

.009 Reject the null 
hypothesis.

6 The distribution of Librarians should play a role in 
educating students on the potential privacy rights risks 
resulting from using the Internet (*) is the same across 
categories of Respondent Type.

Independent-
Samples Mann-
Whitney U Test

.018 Reject the null 
hypothesis.

12 The distribution of Individuals must be duly notified by the 
library about any unauthorized access or breach of their 
personal information contained in library systems (+) is the 
same across categories of Respondent Type.

Independent-
Samples Mann-
Whitney U Test

.000 Reject the null 
hypothesis.

13 The distribution of Third-party firms must duly notify 
individuals about any unauthorized access or breach of 
their personal information contained in their systems (+) is 
the same across categories of Respondent Type.

Independent-
Samples Mann-
Whitney U Test

.004 Reject the null 
hypothesis.

14 The distribution of Individuals should be able to request for 
and given access to any personal data in the custody of the 
library (+) is the same across categories of Respondent Type.

Independent-
Samples Mann-
Whitney U Test

.001 Reject the null 
hypothesis.

Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.



1006  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

questions is therefore rejected with p < 0.05. Further comparison of the mean ranks shows that 
students were more likely to Agree or Strongly Agree with these questions than Librarians 
(see figures 1–5 in appendices).

A four-point Likert scale was also used to measure the respondent’s privacy concerns 
across 14 questions. Mann-Whitney U Test shows no significant differences in the response 
pattern for librarians and students across all the questions. The null hypothesis for these ques-
tions is, therefore, retained with p > 0.05.

Discussion
The use of licensed academic databases and the integration of social tools that can aggregate 
users’ personal data and track online behaviors into libraries have enabled personalized ser-
vice experiences but also present serious privacy consequences for both librarians and their 
patrons.29 The growing concern for privacy and personal data security across the world has 
led to calls for stronger safeguards and legislations.30 Meanwhile, vendors are more likely to 
conform to information technology industry standards than those specific to libraries.31 The 
study investigated privacy attitudes and concerns within the Ghanaian academic library space 
and what the differences and similarities are for librarians and their student patrons.

It is argued that the development of legislative frameworks for privacy and personal data 
is typically influenced by globalization, emerging technologies, and the need to protect people 
against new business models that revolve around the use of personal data.32 As libraries are 
affected in many ways by these issues, studies (especially in the global north) have shown that 
privacy concerns are high among librarians and students who use library services.33 These 
sentiments are generally echoed here in Ghana with most librarians and students expressing 
high concerns about privacy generally and privacy issues within the library environment. The 
enactment of the Data Protection Act 2012 (Act 843) is largely indicative of the recognition 
of the growing individual concerns of information privacy and the implications of privacy 
violation and data breaches for Ghana.34

Major players in the Ghanaian academic library ecosystem want individuals to have greater 
control over their own personal data, just as expressed in Canada35 and the United States,36 and 
this probably explains why, overwhelmingly, they prefer that sharing decisions about personal 
information, circulation records, or internet use records are done with the individual’s consent 
or when mandated by a court order. In contrast to the findings in the American and Canadian 
studies, however, far fewer Ghanaians believe that third-party firms are collecting too much 
personal information in the library environments with a drop in the response rates from 92.3 
percent in Canada and 90 percent in the United States, respectively, to about 50 percent in 
Ghana. When combined with the fact that not many of our respondents believe that search 
engines are sharing their personal information and search records with companies, possible 
explanations for this low level of concern include the chance that respondents simply are less 
concerned about commercial data collection because they consider it necessary for personalized 
services experiences in the library,37 or it is due to a genuine lack of awareness about exactly 
how much information database providers or search engines are collecting about users and 
how they are used. This also explains why most of our respondents want search engine and 
social networking sites to prominently display policies on how users’ information is treated.

Our respondents overwhelmingly also hold the view that, when they give consent to 
companies to use their personal data, the companies must solely use it for the purpose they 



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1007

consented to. This finding is also consistent with the findings in previous studies38 and places 
a call on academic libraries to protect the interest of their students by resisting contracts that 
incorporate “data use clauses that allow for broad capture and open-ended use of patron data 
and patron activity, or that are subject to change without notice.”39

The study also found that, overwhelmingly, librarians and students are concerned about 
their privacy in online environments. They do not want the government monitoring what they 
read and their web activities or people (whether relatives, just acquaintances or strangers) 
and businesses viewing and accessing their personal information online. Meanwhile, most of 
our respondents in both categories indicated either their neutrality or unamenability to self-
censoring their own search and reading habits to avoid being misunderstood—a possible sign 
of ambivalence toward online privacy issues. In addition, there was no consensus among both 
categories of respondents about any form of online tracking, although only a few of them think 
it is beneficial. Between those who think it was just harmful and those who think it was both 
beneficial and harmful, there is hardly any difference. If these opinions are indeed reflective 
of ambivalence, it gives credence to the arguments made about the privacy paradox.40

Though most of our respondents generally have a positive attitude about librarians’ role in 
educating students on privacy issues, just a little more than half of them think that libraries are 
doing their best to prevent unauthorized access to their personal information and circulation 
records. While this feeling is very similar to the attitude of librarians in the Canadian study, 
it is at variance with the attitude of librarians in the American study. More importantly, this 
sentiment could signal two things: a possible decline in how much students trust the library 
to protect their interest and on the part of librarians, an indictment on their commitment to 
championing patron privacy and academic freedom. Librarians must see the trust their users 
(students) place in them as a privilege; to maintain this privilege, they need to be proactive 
in championing the cause of their students and facilitating privacy awareness within their 
institutions.41 On the basis of the near-unanimity of librarians and students on their privacy 
attitudes and concerns of the online library context, the hypothesis H1 is confirmed.

Overall, privacy attitudes and concerns of academic librarians align with those of uni-
versity students in Ghana; however, a few instances that show significant differences in the 
response pattern for their privacy attitudes is worth highlighting. The Mann-Whitney U Test 
shows that, compared to academic librarians, students were more likely to agree to the follow-
ing statements: 1) “Libraries should never share personal information, circulation records, or 
Internet use records with third parties unless it has been authorized by the individual or by a 
court of law”; 2) “Librarians should play a role in educating students on the potential privacy 
rights risks resulting from using the Internet”; 3) “Individuals must be duly notified by the 
library about any unauthorized access or breach of their personal information contained in 
library systems”; 4) “Third-party firms must duly notify individuals about any unauthorized 
access or breach of their personal information contained in their systems”; and 5) “Individu-
als should be able to request for and given access to any personal data in the custody of the 
library.” These revelations perhaps suggest a greater concern on these privacy issues among 
university students in Ghana, more so because it is their privacy and personal data at risk. 
Mimi Calter, Deputy University Librarian at Stanford and Chair of IFLA’s Academic and 
Research Libraries Section, shares the same view noting that, while students are generally 
interested in protecting their own privacy, they mostly have little knowledge or influence on 
the terms negotiated for academic database licenses and management rights and have had to 



1008  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

trust their librarians to protect their interests.42 The disparity in response pattern, however, 
is likely due to the balancing act required of librarians to effectively and innovatively use 
emerging technologies to deliver better service experiences for their patrons.43 Ghanaian aca-
demic librarians need to be proactive in educating and supporting students about privacy 
and making informed online decisions and encouraging them to be aware of the implications 
of privacy breaches and guidelines for data and privacy protections as proposed in the IFLA 
Statement on Privacy in the Library Environment.44 These notable findings and accompanying 
comments notwithstanding, we are unable to confirm hypothesis H0. 

Conclusion
The study examined librarians’ and student users’ attitudes, perceptions, and concerns on 
privacy issues in Ghanaian universities, with the aim of seeking a better alignment of the 
perspectives of these groups. Despite limitations in the research approach, which involved 
reliance on self-reported data and hence a need for a study that relies, additionally, on ob-
served behaviors of stakeholders, this study achieves its goal nonetheless.

This goal was achieved by comparing data on librarians’ attitudes and concerns to those 
of students in their universities. On the outcome of the first objective of the study, the findings 
point to both librarians and students in Ghanaian universities desiring greater control over 
their own personal data in the online library context while requiring ethical responsibility on 
the part of data-collecting online library agents. Regarding the second objective, librarians 
and students expressed concern on their privacy in online environments and are wary of 
state censorship and corporate monopoly over their personal data. However, despite librar-
ians’ and students’ positive attitude about the strong role of librarians in guaranteeing their 
personal data, a significant number of them demonstrate little faith in librarians to actualize 
the protection of their personal data. Finally, on the question of alignment between librarians 
and students on the variables, privacy attitudes and concerns of academic librarians were 
noted to align with those of university students in Ghana. On the basis of these findings, it is 
recommended that Ghanaian academic librarians, as part of their educational efforts, integrate 
privacy education for their users including students emphasizing the need to make informed 
online decisions and exposing potential repercussions of their decisions while using online 
library and digital resources. Again, librarians must demonstrate explicitly that they are able 
to maintain the sanctity of the data of their users (students). Explicit expressions of librarians’ 
readiness to protect users’ data may be achieved through the development of data protection 
policies embedded in library ICT policies. Furthermore, librarians must be genuinely con-
cerned about user concerns of their data and provide constant assurance of their readiness to 
prioritize user needs in facilitating access to digital and online information.

Acknowledgments 
The authors would like to thank Emeritus Professor Peter G. Underwood for his valuable 
comments. We are also very grateful to Professor Michael Zimmer for giving us permission 
to adopt and adapt his instrument for our study.



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1009

Appendices
TABLE 5

General Privacy Attitudes
Librarians Students Total
N % N % N %

Individuals should be able to 
control who sees their personal 
information.

Strongly Disagree 7 9.5 56 7.7 63 7.9
Disagree 8 10.8 24 3.3 32 4.0
Neutral 3 4.1 18 2.5 21 2.6
Agree 13 17.6 161 22.2 174 21.8
Strongly Agree 43 58.1 467 64.3 510 63.8
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

I’m concerned that third-party 
firms are collecting too much 
personal information about me 
and other individuals in online 
library environments. (*)

Strongly Disagree 7 9.5 56 7.7 63 7.9
Disagree 10 13.5 113 15.6 123 15.4
Neutral 20 27.0 191 26.3 211 26.4
Agree 24 32.4 229 31.5 253 31.6
Strongly Agree 13 17.6 137 18.9 150 18.8
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Libraries should never share 
personal information, circulation 
records, or internet use records 
with third parties unless it has 
been authorized by the individual 
or by a court of law.

Strongly Disagree 9 12.2 43 5.9 52 6.5
Disagree 6 8.1 45 6.2 51 6.4
Neutral 6 8.1 51 7.0 57 7.1
Agree 23 31.1 185 25.5 208 26.0
Strongly Agree 30 40.5 402 55.4 432 54.0
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

When people give personal 
information to a company for a 
specific purpose, the company 
should only use the information 
for that purpose.

Strongly Disagree 4 5.4 30 4.1 34 4.3
Disagree 7 9.5 34 4.7 41 5.1
Neutral 3 4.1 43 5.9 46 5.8
Agree 20 27.0 178 24.5 198 24.8
Strongly Agree 40 54.1 441 60.7 481 60.1
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Librarians are doing all they can 
to prevent unauthorized access 
to students’ personal information 
and circulation records. (*)

Strongly Disagree 7 9.5 33 4.5 40 5.0
Disagree 8 10.8 73 10.1 81 10.1
Neutral 20 27.0 225 31.0 245 30.6
Agree 20 27.0 251 34.6 271 33.9
Strongly Agree 19 25.7 144 19.8 163 20.4
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Librarians should play a role 
in educating students on the 
potential privacy rights risks 
resulting from using the internet. 
(*)

Strongly Disagree 6 8.1 25 3.4 31 3.9
Disagree 2 2.7 29 4.0 31 3.9
Neutral 9 12.2 64 8.8 73 9.1
Agree 29 39.2 232 32.0 261 32.6
Strongly Agree 28 37.8 376 51.8 404 50.5
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0



1010  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

TABLE 5
General Privacy Attitudes

Librarians Students Total
N % N % N %

Search engines (like Google) 
and social networking sites 
(like Facebook, Twitter) should 
prominently display policies 
on how a user’s information is 
treated. (*)

Strongly Disagree 4 5.4 35 4.8 39 4.9
Disagree 8 10.8 39 5.4 47 5.9
Neutral 7 9.5 66 9.1 73 9.1
Agree 24 32.4 232 32.0 256 32.0
Strongly Agree 31 41.9 354 48.8 385 48.1
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

I self-censor my search and 
reading habits out of fear that my 
records could be misunderstood.

Strongly Disagree 7 9.5 60 8.3 67 8.4
Disagree 18 24.3 121 16.7 139 17.4
Neutral 20 27.0 234 32.2 254 31.8
Agree 20 27.0 213 29.3 233 29.1
Strongly Agree 9 12.2 98 13.5 107 13.4
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

I’m concerned that search 
engines are sharing my personal 
information and search records 
with companies.

Strongly Disagree 8 10.8 67 9.2 75 9.4
Disagree 13 17.6 135 18.6 148 18.5
Neutral 16 21.6 187 25.8 203 25.4
Agree 23 31.1 178 24.5 201 25.1
Strongly Agree 14 18.9 159 21.9 173 21.6
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

I don’t mind if the government 
knows what I’ve been reading.

Strongly Disagree 20 27.0 203 28.0 223 27.9
Disagree 20 27.0 178 24.5 198 24.8
Neutral 20 27.0 116 16.0 136 17.0
Agree 10 13.5 138 19.0 148 18.5
Strongly Agree 4 5.4 91 12.5 95 11.9
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

I don’t mind if people can view 
my personal information on the 
internet. I have nothing to hide.

Strongly Disagree 28 37.8 326 44.9 354 44.3
Disagree 30 40.5 168 23.1 198 24.8
Neutral 6 8.1 82 11.3 88 11.0
Agree 6 8.1 86 11.8 92 11.5
Strongly Agree 4 5.4 64 8.8 68 8.5
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Individuals must be duly 
notified by the library about any 
unauthorized access or breach 
of their personal information 
contained in library systems. (+)

Strongly Disagree 8 10.8 39 5.4 47 5.9
Disagree 11 14.9 41 5.6 52 6.5
Neutral 6 8.1 56 7.7 62 7.8
Agree 25 33.8 209 28.8 234 29.3
Strongly Agree 24 32.4 381 52.5 405 50.6
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1011

TABLE 5
General Privacy Attitudes

Librarians Students Total
N % N % N %

Third-party firms must duly 
notify individuals about any 
unauthorized access or breach 
of their personal information 
contained in their systems. (+)

Strongly Disagree 4 5.4 47 6.5 51 6.4
Disagree 9 12.2 46 6.3 55 6.9
Neutral 9 12.2 68 9.4 77 9.6
Agree 32 43.2 225 31.0 257 32.1
Strongly Agree 20 27.0 340 46.8 360 45.0
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Individuals should be able to 
request and be given access to 
any personal data in the custody 
of the library. (+)

Strongly Disagree 20 27.0 93 12.8 113 14.1
Disagree 9 12.2 78 10.7 87 10.9
Neutral 9 12.2 81 11.2 90 11.3
Agree 19 25.7 216 29.8 235 29.4
Strongly Agree 17 23.0 258 35.5 275 34.4
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Individuals should be able to 
access any personal data held by 
social networking sites. (+)

Strongly Disagree 16 21.6 118 16.3 134 16.8
Disagree 11 14.9 87 12.0 98 12.3
Neutral 4 5.4 107 14.7 111 13.9
Agree 21 28.4 184 25.3 205 25.6
Strongly Agree 22 29.7 230 31.7 252 31.5
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

TABLE 6
Privacy Concerns

Librarians Students Total
N % N % N %

Are you concerned about 
your privacy while using the 
internet? (*)

Very Concerned 59 79.7 594 81.8 653 81.6
Somewhat Concerned 13 17.6 72 9.9 85 10.6
Not Too Concerned 2 2.7 40 5.5 42 5.3
Not at All Concerned 0 0.0 20 2.8 20 2.5
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned about 
family, friends, and people 
whom you know getting 
personal information about 
you and your web activities? 
(*)

Very Concerned 46 62.2 408 56.2 454 56.8
Somewhat Concerned 16 21.6 172 23.7 188 23.5
Not Too Concerned 11 14.9 110 15.2 121 15.1
Not at All Concerned 1 1.4 36 5.0 37 4.6
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned about 
businesses and people whom 
you do not know getting 
personal information about 
you and your web activities? 
(*)

Very Concerned 51 68.9 491 67.6 542 67.8
Somewhat Concerned 12 16.2 112 15.4 124 15.5
Not Too Concerned 7 9.5 78 10.7 85 10.6
Not at All Concerned 4 5.4 45 6.2 49 6.1
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0



1012  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

TABLE 6
Privacy Concerns

Librarians Students Total
N % N % N %

Are you concerned about 
the government and law 
enforcement getting personal 
information about you and 
your web activities? (*)

Very Concerned 38 51.4 417 57.4 455 56.9
Somewhat Concerned 22 29.7 164 22.6 186 23.3
Not Too Concerned 11 14.9 89 12.3 100 12.5
Not at All Concerned 3 4.1 56 7.7 59 7.4
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned about 
online identity theft?

Very Concerned 59 79.7 564 77.7 623 77.9
Somewhat Concerned 6 8.1 88 12.1 94 11.8
Not Too Concerned 7 9.5 41 5.6 48 6.0
Not at All Concerned 2 2.7 33 4.5 35 4.4
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned about the 
security of your information 
given to online companies?

Very Concerned 54 73.0 521 71.8 575 71.9
Somewhat Concerned 14 18.9 118 16.3 132 16.5
Not Too Concerned 3 4.1 48 6.6 51 6.4
Not at All Concerned 3 4.1 39 5.4 42 5.3
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned that 
you are asked for too much 
personal information when 
you join a social networking 
site?

Very Concerned 44 59.5 416 57.3 460 57.5
Somewhat Concerned 20 27.0 163 22.5 183 22.9
Not Too Concerned 9 12.2 107 14.7 116 14.5
Not at All Concerned 1 1.4 40 5.5 41 5.1
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned about 
people you do not know 
obtaining personal 
information about you from 
your online activities?

Very Concerned 52 70.3 516 71.1 568 71.0
Somewhat Concerned 13 17.6 109 15.0 122 15.3
Not Too Concerned 6 8.1 61 8.4 67 8.4
Not at All Concerned 3 4.1 40 5.5 43 5.4
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned about 
who might access your web 
browsing history from your 
computer itself?

Very Concerned 53 71.6 469 64.6 522 65.3
Somewhat Concerned 11 14.9 134 18.5 145 18.1
Not Too Concerned 8 10.8 83 11.4 91 11.4
Not at All Concerned 2 2.7 40 5.5 42 5.3
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned about 
search engines tracking your 
keywords and sites you visit?

Very Concerned 40 54.1 451 62.1 491 61.4
Somewhat Concerned 16 21.6 142 19.6 158 19.8
Not Too Concerned 11 14.9 77 10.6 88 11.0
Not at All Concerned 7 9.5 56 7.7 63 7.9
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1013

TABLE 6
Privacy Concerns

Librarians Students Total
N % N % N %

Are you concerned about the 
use of web cookies or other 
means of tracking your visits to 
other websites?

Very Concerned 40 54.1 407 56.1 447 55.9
Somewhat Concerned 18 24.3 177 24.4 195 24.4
Not Too Concerned 10 13.5 97 13.4 107 13.4
Not at All Concerned 6 8.1 45 6.2 51 6.4
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned that 
cellphone providers might 
track your physical location?

Very Concerned 43 58.1 401 55.2 444 55.5
Somewhat Concerned 18 24.3 183 25.2 201 25.1
Not Too Concerned 9 12.2 92 12.7 101 12.6
Not at All Concerned 4 5.4 50 6.9 54 6.8
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned that 
mobile and social networking 
applications might collect 
information about your 
activities online or your 
physical location?

Very Concerned 38 51.4 442 60.9 480 60.0
Somewhat Concerned 25 33.8 147 20.2 172 21.5
Not Too Concerned 9 12.2 98 13.5 107 13.4
Not at All Concerned 2 2.7 39 5.4 41 5.1
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0

Are you concerned about 
other people uploading a 
photo or video of yourself to 
the internet where you are 
clearly recognizable without 
your permission?

Very Concerned 53 71.6 519 71.5 572 71.5
Somewhat Concerned 13 17.6 96 13.2 109 13.6
Not Too Concerned 3 4.1 57 7.9 60 7.5
Not at All Concerned 5 6.8 54 7.4 59 7.4
Total 74 100.0 726 100.0 800 100.0



1014  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

FIGURE 1
Libraries Should Never Share Personal Information Unless Authorized by Individual or 

Court



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1015

FIGURE 2
Librarians should play a role in educating students on the potential privacy risks.



1016  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

FIGURE 3
Individuals must be duly notified by the library about any unauthorized access of their 

personal information



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1017

FIGURE 4
Third-party firms must duly notify individuals about any unauthorized access of their 

personal information.



1018  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

Notes
	 1.	Michael Zimmer, “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy,” Library Quarterly 

84, no. 2 (2014): 123–51, https://doi.org/10.1086/675329.
	 2.	Peter Fernandez, “Privacy and Generation Y: Applying Library Values to Social Networking Sites,” Com-

munity & Junior College Libraries 16, no. 2 (2010): 100–13, https://doi.org/10.1080/02763911003689495.

FIGURE 5
Individuals should be able to request and be given access to any personal data in the 

custody of the library



Privacy Issues in Libraries with Online Services    1019

	 3.	Stephanie Krueger, “Academic Librarians in Canada Concerned about Online and Patron Privacy but 
Lack Knowledge about Institutional Procedures and Policies,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 14, 
no. 2 (2019): 116–18, https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29555.

	 4.	Meredith G. Farkas, “Technology in Practice: Too Much Information?” American Libraries 42, no. 5/6 (2011): 
36, http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/7308; Judith Fingeret Krug and Candace D. Morgan, “ALA and Intellectual 
Freedom: A Historical Overview,” in Intellectual Freedom Manual, 8th ed. (Chicago, IL: American Library Associa-
tion, 2010), 21–36; Barbara M. Jones, Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your Academic Library (Chicago, IL: American 
Library Association, 2009).

	 5.	Shana Ponelis, “Ethical Risks of Social Media Use by Academic Libraries,” Innovation: Journal of Appropriate 
Librarianship and Information Work in Southern Africa 2013, no. 47 (2013): 231–44, https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC158314.

	 6.	Michael Zimmer, “Assessing the Treatment of Patron Privacy in Library 2.0 Literature,” Information Tech-
nology and Libraries 32, no. 2 (October 2, 2013): 29–41, https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v32i2.3420.

	 7.	David McMenemy, “Rights to Privacy and Freedom of Expression in Public Libraries: Squaring the 
Circle,” in IFLA World Library and Information Congress (Greater Columbus Convention Center, 2016), 1–9, https://
strathprints.strath.ac.uk/57407/; Alan Rubel, “Libraries, Electronic Resources, and Privacy: The Case for Positive 
Intellectual Freedom,” Library Quarterly 84, no. 2 (October 2, 2014): 183–208, https://doi.org/10.1086/675331; John 
W.W. Cyrus and Mark P. Baggett, “Mobile Technology: Implications for Privacy and Librarianship,” Reference 
Librarian 53, no. 3 (2012): 284–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2012.678765.

	 8.	Nikki Tummon and Dawn McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regard-
ing Library and Online Privacy: A National Study,” Library & Information Science Research 40, no. 2 (2018): 86–97, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.05.002.

	 9.	Kelley Cotter and Maureen Diana Sasso, “Libraries Protecting Privacy on Social Media: Sharing without 
‘Oversharing,’” Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice 4, no. 2 (2016): 73–90, https://doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2016.130.

10.	Martyn Wade, “Privacy and Libraries,” in IFLA World Library and Information Congress (Cape Town, South 
Africa, 2015), 1–7, http://library.ifla.org/1264/1/113-wade-en.pdf.

11.	Zimmer, “Assessing the Treatment of Patron Privacy in Library 2.0 Literature”; Jill M. Sodt and Terri 
Pedersen Summey, “Beyond the Library’s Walls: Using Library 2.0 Tools to Reach Out to All Users,” Journal of 
Library Administration 49, no. 1/2 (2009): 97–109, https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820802312854.

12.	Masoumeh Ansari et al., “The Role of Social Networks in the Scientific Exchange of Librarians: A Case 
Study,” Library Philosophy & Practice, 2018, 1–16, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1837; Viscount Buer-
nortey Buer, Christopher Mfum Owusu-Ansah, and Gabriel Kwesi Acquah, “Facebook Use among Students 
of University of Education Winneba, Ghana,” Ghana Library Journal 26, no. 2 (2016): 65–79; Christopher Owusu-
Ansah et al., “Applications of Social Media and Web 2.0 for Research Support in Selected African Academic 
Institutions,” Journal of Balkan Libraries Union 3, no. 1 (2015): 30–39, https://doi.org/10.16918/bluj.77572; Tom Kwanya, 
Christine Stilwell, and Peter G. Underwood, “Intelligent Libraries and Apomediators: Distinguishing between 
Library 3.0 and Library 2.0,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 45, no. 3 (2013): 187–97, https://doi.
org/10.1177/0961000611435256; Efua Mansa Ayiah and Cynthia Henewaa Kumah, “Social Networking: A Tool 
to Use for Effective Service Delivery to Clients by African Libraries,” in World Library and Information Congress: 
77th IFLA General Conference and Assembly (San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2011), 1–14, https://cf5-www.ifla.org/past-
wlic/2011/183-ayiah-en.pdf.

13.	Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regarding Library and 
Online Privacy”; Cotter and Sasso, “Libraries Protecting Privacy on Social Media”; Ponelis, “Ethical Risks of Social 
Media Use by Academic Libraries”; Zimmer, “Assessing the Treatment of Patron Privacy in Library 2.0 Literature.”

14.	Cotter and Sasso, “Libraries Protecting Privacy on Social Media”; Ponelis, “Ethical Risks of Social Media 
Use by Academic Libraries.”

15.	Cotter and Sasso, “Libraries Protecting Privacy on Social Media,” 75.
16.	Ponelis, “Ethical Risks of Social Media Use by Academic Libraries.”
17.	 Cherie L. Givens, Information Privacy Fundamentals for Librarians and Information Professionals (Lanham, 

MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 24.
18.	Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regarding Library 

and Online Privacy”; Zimmer, “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy”; Steven 
Johns and Karen Lawson, “University Undergraduate Students and Library-Related Privacy Issues,” Library & 
Information Science Research 27, no. 4 (2005): 485–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2005.08.006.

19.	Farkas, “Technology in Practice: Too Much Information?”
20.	Krueger, “Academic Librarians in Canada Concerned about Online and Patron Privacy but Lack Knowl-

edge about Institutional Procedures and Policies”; Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian 
Academic Librarians Regarding Library and Online Privacy.”



1020  College & Research Libraries	 September 2020

21.	Johns and Lawson, “University Undergraduate Students and Library-Related Privacy Issues.”
22.	Lynne Siemens, “Balancing Students’ Privacy Concerns While Increasing Student Engagement in E-

Learning Environments,” in Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in E-Learning Environments: Web 2.0 and 
Blended Learning Technologies, Catherine Althaus, Charles Wankel, and Patrick Blessinger, eds., vol. 6, Part G, 
Cutting-Edge Technologies in Higher Education (Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2013), 339–57, 
https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-9968(2013)000006G014.

23.	Susanne Barth and Menno D.T. de Jong, “The Privacy Paradox: Investigating Discrepancies between Ex-
pressed Privacy Concerns and Actual Online Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review,” Telematics and Informatics 
34, no. 7 (2017): 1038–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013; Patricia A. Norberg, Daniel R. Horne, and David A. 
Horne, “The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer 
Affairs 41, no. 1 (2007): 100–26, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x; Susan B. Barnes, “A Privacy Paradox: 
Social Networking in the United States,” First Monday 11, no. 9 (2006), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.

24.	Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regarding Library 
and Online Privacy”; Zimmer, “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy.”

25.	Johns and Lawson, “University Undergraduate Students and Library-Related Privacy Issues.”
26.	Margo Jeske et al., “The Intersection of Freedom of Information, Privacy Legislation and Library Services in 

Canadian Jurisdictions,” Legal Information Management 16, no. 1 (2016): 14–21, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669616000050.
27.	 Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regarding Library 

and Online Privacy.”
28.	Zimmer, “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy.”
29.	Zimmer, “Assessing the Treatment of Patron Privacy in Library 2.0 Literature”; Sodt and Summey, “Be-

yond the Library’s Walls”; Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians 
Regarding Library and Online Privacy”; Cotter and Sasso, “Libraries Protecting Privacy on Social Media”; 
Jeske et al., “The Intersection of Freedom of Information, Privacy Legislation and Library Services in Canadian 
Jurisdictions”; Ponelis, “Ethical Risks of Social Media Use by Academic Libraries.”

30.	Jeske et al., “The Intersection of Freedom of Information, Privacy Legislation and Library Services in 
Canadian Jurisdictions”; Jones, Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your Academic Library.

31.	April D. Lambert, Michelle Parker, and Masooda Bashir, “Library Patron Privacy in Jeopardy: An Analysis 
of the Privacy Policies of Digital Content Vendors,” in Proceedings of the 78th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Information 
Science with Impact: Research in and for the Community (St. Louis, MO: American Society for Information Science, 
2015), 1–9, https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2857114.

32.	Dominic N. Dagbanja, “The Right to Privacy and Data Protection in Ghana,” in African Data Privacy Laws, 
Alex B Makulilo, ed., Law, Governance and Technology Series (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2016), 230, https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47317-8_10.

33.	Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regarding Library 
and Online Privacy”; Zimmer, “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy”; Johns and 
Lawson, “University Undergraduate Students and Library-Related Privacy Issues.”

34.	Dagbanja, “The Right to Privacy and Data Protection in Ghana,” 232.
35.	Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regarding Library 

and Online Privacy.”
36.	Zimmer, “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy.”
37.	 Zimmer, “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy.”
38.	Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regarding Library 

and Online Privacy”; Zimmer, “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy”; Siemens, 
“Balancing Students’ Privacy Concerns While Increasing Student Engagement in E-Learning Environments”; 
Johns and Lawson, “University Undergraduate Students and Library-Related Privacy Issues.”

39.	IFLA, “Protecting Privacy in the Modern Academic Library: An Interview with Mimi Calter,” 2019, https://
www.ifla.org/node/92094.

40.	Barth and de Jong, “The Privacy Paradox”; Norberg, Horne, and Horne, “The Privacy Paradox”; Barnes, 
“A Privacy Paradox.”

41.	Lisa Sutlieff and Jackie Chelin, “‘An Absolute Prerequisite’: The Importance of User Privacy and Trust in 
Maintaining Academic Freedom at the Library,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 42, no. 3 (October 
2, 2010): 163–77, https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000610368916.

42.	IFLA, “Protecting Privacy in the Modern Academic Library: An Interview with Mimi Calter.”
43.	Tummon and McKinnon, “Attitudes and Practices of Canadian Academic Librarians Regarding Library 

and Online Privacy.”
44.	IFLA, “IFLA Statement on Privacy in the Library Environment,” 2015, https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/10056.