Trends and practices of seeking online information sources: the case of science faculties of a developing country.
Tahira, Muzammil ; Ameen, Kanwal ; Alias, Rosa Alinda 等
Introduction
Scholarly communication is the essence of all scientific work
(Gravey, 1979). With the emergence of digital information resources and
internet, the modes of accessing, searching, retrieving and consuming
scholarly information have been rapidly changed. This scenario is
"effectively transforming science into e-science" (Robert,
2009). The major developments in scientists' world are:
globalization, exponential growth of S&T literature, increasing
tendency of team research (multidisciplinary & interdisciplinary),
collaboration at local, national and international level, and rapid
disseminations of research results through sophisticated technologies.
The direct access to scholarly communication made their practices more
productive and collaborative. This scenario has brought certain
challenges along with promising opportunities (Tahira, 2008).
The literature reports that science academicians of higher
education are heavy users of e-scholarly communication besides
traditional sources (Tenopir, 2002; 2003; Smith, 2003; Hiller and Self,
2002; Tenopir and King, 2004; 2001; Jamali, 2008). All over the world
library subscription, online subscribed and unsubscribed sources are
playing an important role in meeting their scholarly needs at local,
national and international level. Life scientists were found the biggest
users and OA repositories featured strongly in the ranked lists of life
sciences (Nicholas et al. 2009). "The scientists have high
expectation for being able to access all the information they need in
the online format" (Jamali, 2008). While studying the differences
in information seeking behaviour of scientists from different subfields
of physics and astronomy, he raises question for this community that
"What is not available online is not worth reading". Surridge
rightly advocates the importance of web 2.0 as an important mode to meet
the scientists' needs. He viewed the transition to Web 2.0 is
perfectly natural. Scientists of the past or present are habitual of
"crowd sourcing" of knowledge through open debate and Web 2.0
fits perfectly with the science works (as cited in Waldrop, 2008, May).
The significant increase in the use of electronic modes and systems has
a positive influence on the ease of communication without affecting the
inherent structure of the process and faculty members and academic
officers at some prestigious institutions are saying "no" to
the big deal (Smith, 2007).
The awareness and adoption of e-journals is increasing rapidly
while convenience of use has remained the most important concern for
users. However, "the capacity to absorb scientific and technical
knowledge is often weak in developing countries, leading to low levels
of scientific output and further under-development" (Chan, Kirsop,
Costa and Arunachalam, 2005, p.3). ProQuest advisory board meeting
viewed that permanent access is a big deal, and raised the question to
"thoughts on institutional repositories, open access, ILS, and
anything else that comes to mind" (Arbor, 2007, May, 7-8). The
concept of OA has introduced by Harnad (1999) in a proposal. He
suggested to place scholarly pre-prints along with post-prints of
peer-reviewed published articles in open archives, and made available
for free of cost. "OA is now threatening to overturn the $6 billion
scholarly publishing industry and is forcing even the largest publishers
against the ropes" (Poyender, 2004, p.5).
Providing speedy and reliable e-access to consumers is a
fundamental prerequisite for promoting digital culture in a country.
This study has been made at a time when the Government of Pakistan
initiated significant, concrete efforts by establishing ICT
infrastructure in universities and providing e-sources to university
libraries in order to meet the changing needs of academicians,
especially in the field of Science and Technology (S&T). The
Government, through Higher Education Commission (HEC), is spending huge
amount of budget for the subscription of online sources and promotion of
national digital library programme. This is a unique example of country
level subscription of e-sources in the third world (Said, 2006). Right
now, HEC is spending huge amount of money in subscribing more than
thirty e-databases and 45000 e-books. And it is also providing lending
services from different e-repositories (Punjab University Library, n.d.)
Library and information services available to the Community of PU are:
1. A central library
2. Institutional/departmental library units
3. HEC National Digital Library on Campus Access (subscribed as
well as open access digital sources i.e., e-journals, e-books, links to
e-repositories etc.)
These e-databases are searchable at PU campus with one window
interface through ELIN (Electronic Library Information Navigator). ELIN
integrates data from several publishers, databases and e-print open
archives (Punjab University Library, n.d.).
The networked academic environment demands that S&T teachers
and researchers of Pakistan make effective use of the available
resources for competitive teaching and research. They suppose to be able
to use effectively the "knowledge @ your [their] fingertips"
(Pakistan, HEC, n.d.). At the same time, for LIS professionals it is
vital to probe into the pattern and practices of this community
regarding seeking and using the digital resources at their disposal.
For the purpose of this study, OA and SA are defined as:
Open Access: An e-mode to access the information that is digitized,
free of charge, copyright and licensing restrictions and available
through general online-resources (e.g. Google, Yahoo, Scirus etc.,
e-links and informal e-communication).
Subscribed Access: HEC, IP based free on campus access to its
affiliated institution(s).
Objectives
The objectives of this study are to investigate information seeking
and usage patterns of Science faculties of PU with special focus on
'OA' and 'SA' modes to meet their e-information
needs.
The key foci are intended to answer the following research
questions:
1. What is science faculty's preferred e-mode for obtaining
journals articles?
2. Is there any significant difference due to the importance
assigned to SA and OA in search of relevant information and science
faculties?
3. Is there any significant difference due to the importance
assigned to SA and OA in search of relevant information and
respondents' designation?
4. Is there any significant difference in the use of SA and OA and
science faculties?
5. Is there any significant difference in the use of SA and OA and
respondents designation?
6. Is there any significant difference to assign level of adequacy
level of SA and science faculties?
7. Is there any significant difference to assign adequacy level of
SA and respondents designation?
Research Method
Quantitative design of research, based on a self-completion
structured questionnaire survey was used (Appendix A). Surveyed
population consisted of whole full time S&T academics working in the
25 institutions/colleges/departments (Appendix B) of all Science
faculties viz. Sciences, Life Science, Engineering & Technology and
Pharmacy. Total response rate was 71% (156 out of 220 existed members).
Frequency measure, descriptive statistics (mean [[mu]]) and further,
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to analyze, interpret and draw
conclusions. Likert type categorical scale and multiple choices are used
to measure the respondents' attributes.
The analysis and interpretations of data are described below.
Data Analysis and Interpretations
Population Profile
Surveyed population is consisted of all full time S&T teachers
of Science Faculties working in the 25 departments/colleges/institutions
of PU.
The analysis of faculty wise percentage response in ranking order
is presented in Table 1. The total academic staff of four faculties was
267. At the time of data collection, 220 faculty members were present.
Percentage response of Engineering and Technology faculty is 83 %
(25/30), Science 77% (89/116), Pharmacy 67% (10/15) Life Science 54%
(32/59). Total response rate is 71% (156/220).
Table 1. Response Rate of S& T Faculties of PU
Rank Faculty Total Present Respondents Percentage
Faculty Response
Members
1 Engineering 36 30 25 83
&
Technology
2 Science 138 116 89 77
3 Pharmacy 22 15 10 67
4 Life 71 59 32 54
Science
Total 267 220 156 71
The data (Table 2) show percentage response received according to
respondent's designation. Majority of respondents are Lecturer 60%
(93) followed by Assistant Professor 19% (30), Associate Professor 12%
(19) and Professor 9% (14).
Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Respondent's' Designation (N=156)
Rank Faculty's designation Frequency Percent (%)
1 Lecturer 93 60
2 Assistant Professor 30 19
3 Associate Professor 19 12
4 Professor 14 9
Preference for E-Scholarly Communication
Table 3 demonstrates variation in positive and negative responses
about the respondents' preferences for e-scholarly communication.
Table 3. Preferred E-modes for obtaining Journals Articles
Faculty Preferred e-modes n Yes No
Science Library online subscription 84 42 42
Other online sources 84 50 34
Life Science Library online subscription 32 21 11
Other online sources 32 21 11
Engineering & Technology Library online subscription 24 16 8
Other online sources 24 19 5
Pharmacy Library online subscription 10 10 0
Other online sources 10 7 3
Frequency measures show that there is much positive response for
the preference of 'other online sources' in case of Science
and Engineering & Technology faculties. However, in case of Life
Science, there is equal response for the preferences of both modes of
e-sources. On the other hand, all the Pharmacy respondents prefer to
consult 'library online subscription' to meet their
e-scholarly communication.
Importance of E-modes in Search of Relevant Information
Quality and quantity of information sources have been mounted due
to modern ICTs developments and networking environment. Ease of access,
least effort in terms of time, money and energy are found important
factors in searching, using and quality of information. Due to changing
and emerging information needs, respondents' views are analyzed
about the importance of both types of available e-sources. Table 2
presents the data in this regard.
Data (Table 4) provide point of view of the respondents of all
science faculties about the importance of the 'SA'
sources' and 'OA' sources in search of relevant
information. Mean values ([mu]) exhibit that science faculty members
consider direct e-access (both modes) 'very important' in
searching of relevant information.
Table 4. The Importance of Subscribed and Open Access
Sources in Search of Relevant Information
Faculty Sources n Mean= [mu] Std. Dev.
Science HEC digital sources 87 2.9 0.963
Other online sources 84 3.2 0.822
Life Science HEC digital sources 32 3.1 1.008
Other online sources 32 3.4 0.499
Engineering & HEC digital sources 23 3.3 1.054
Technology Other online sources 24 3.5 0.721
Pharmacy HEC digital sources 10 3.2 1.033
Other online sources 10 3.1 0.994
Extremely Important = 4; Very important = 3; Important = 2; Some what
important= 1; Not important= 0
Further (Table 4.1) affiliation of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
indicates that there is no significant difference among 'science
faculties' and the 'consider importance' of SA (F=.756,
Sig=.520) and OA (F=1.122, Sig=.342).
Table 4.1. ANOVA Table of Responses among Science Faculties
Importance of Online sources F Sig.
HEC digital sources 0.756 0.520
Other online resources 1.122 0.342
The mean difference is significant at the.05 level
Descriptive statistics mean values ([mu]) (Table 5) on the basis of
designation imply that they consider both modes of e-access important.
Table 5. Designation and Importance of Subscribed and
Open Access Sources in Search of Relevant Information
Faculty Importance of n Mean= Std.
Designation online sources [mu] Dev.
Lecturer HEC digital 91 3.0 1.024
sources
Other online 91 3.3 0.761
sources
Asst. Prof HEC digital 29 3.3 0.897
sources
Other online 27 3.2 0.943
sources
Associate Prof HEC digital 18 3.2 0.984
sources
Other online 18 3.5 0.618
sources
Professor HEC digital 14 3.1 0.949
sources
Other online 14 3.5 0.518
sources
Extremely Important = 4; Very important = 3; Important = 2; Some what
important= 1; Not important= 0
However, affiliation of ANOVA (Table 5.1) responses among science
faculties revealed no substantial evidence of significant difference
among 'respondent's designations' and the 'consider
importance' of both SA (F= 1.499, Sig=0.217) and OA (F= 1.063,
Sig=0.367).
Table 5.1. ANOVA Table of Responses by Designation
Importance of Online sources F Sig.
HEC digital sources 1.499 0.217
Other online resources 1.063 0.367
The mean difference is significant at the.05 level
Frequent Use of E-Sources
Descriptive statistics about the frequent use of e-sources (Table
6.) divulges that all the science faculties' often use
'OA' to meet their academic and research information needs.
'SA' is often used ([mu]= 2.8; 2.6) by Pharmacy and Life
Science faculties. Whereas, the respondents of Engineering &
Technology and Science are occasionally ([mu]= 2.4; 2.4) used these
databases.
Table 6. Often Use of E-Sources by Science Faculties
Faculty E-Sources N Mean= [mu] Std. Dev.
Science HEC subscribed sources 86 2.4 1.144
Other web sources 77 3.0 1.083
Life Science HEC subscribed sources 29 2.6 1.178
Other web sources 29 2.9 1.060
Engineering & HEC subscribed sources 24 2.5 1.382
Technology Other web sources 19 3.0 1.062
Pharmacy HEC subscribed sources 10 2.8 1.033
Other web sources 9 2.8 0.972
Very often= 4; Often= 3; Occasionally = 2; Rarely =1; Never= 0
Further, affiliation of ANOVA (Table 6.1) about the often use of
both e-modes provides no evidence of significant difference among
'science faculties' and the 'use' of) SA (F=.392,
Sig=.759 and OA (F=.182, Sig=.908).
Table 6.1. ANOVA Table of Responses among Faculties
Use of Online sources F Sig.
HEC subscribed sources .392 .759
Other web sources .182 .908
The mean difference is significant at the.05 level
Descriptive statistics mean values (Table 7) about the often use of
online sources by designation indicate that 'OA' is often use
by all of them. Whereas, 'Assistant Professor' ([mu]=2.2) and
'Associate Professor' ([mu]=2.2) occasionally use
'SA' to meet their academic and research information needs.
Table 7. Frequent Use of E-Sources by Designation
Designation Use of online sources N Mean= u Std. Dev.
Lecturer HEC subscribed sources 86 2.5 1.111
Other web sources 77 3.0 1.017
Asst. Professor HEC subscribed sources 29 2.2 1.343
Other web sources 29 3.0 0.868
Associate HEC subscribed sources 24 2.2 1.214
Professor Other web sources 19 2.6 1.277
Professor HEC subscribed sources 10 3.0 0.997
Other web sources 9 2.8 1.371
Very often= 4; Often= 3; Occasionally = 2; Rarely =1; Never= 0
Affiliation of ANOVA (Table 7.1.) revealed that data provide no
substantial evidence about the often use of both e-modes and there is no
significant difference existed between 'faculty's
designation' and the 'use' of SA (F=2.381, Sig=0.072) and
OA (F=.621, Sig=0..603).
Table 7.1. ANOVA Table of Responses among Faculties
Use of online sources F Sig.
HEC digital sources 2.381 0.072
Other online resources 0.621 0.603
The mean difference is significant at the.05 level
Adequacy level of HEC Subscribed Sources
When responses are examined about the adequacy level of HEC
subscribed sources, the data (Table 8.) present that the respondents of
three faculties 'Science', 'Life Science' and
'Pharmacy' are to moderate extent ([mu]= 1.8; 1.7; 1.6)
satisfied from HEC subscribed sources. Mean values also depict slight
variation among their responses. Whereas, the faculty members of
Engineering and Technology are only 'to some extent'
([mu]=1.4) satisfied from these sources.
Table 8. Faculties and adequacy level of Subscribed Sources
Faculty N Mean= u Std. Dev.
Science 83 1.8 0.797
Life Science 32 1.7 0.693
Engineering & Technology 22 1.4 0.670
Pharmacy 10 1.6 0.699
To great extent =3; To moderate extent = 2; To some extent = 1;
Not at all= 0
However, affiliation of ANOVA (Table 8) provides evidence that none
of science faculties found 'SA' adequate enough to meet their
information needs. Data (Table 8.1) indicate that no significant
difference (F=1.182, Sig=0.319) exist between 'adequacy level of
HEC digital sources' and 'science faculties'.
Table 8.1. ANOVA Table of Responses among Science Faculties
Adequacy level of subscribed sources F Sig.
HEC digital sources 1.182 0.319
The mean difference is significant at the.05 level
Descriptive statistics mean values (Table 9) indicate that faculty
members by designations found 'SA' to moderate extent adequate
enough to meet their e-information needs. Further, analysis by ANOVA
(Table9.1) provide evidence that there is no significant difference
existed between 'adequacy level of HEC digital sources'
(F=.076, Sig=0.973) and 'faculty's designation'.
Table 9. Designation and Adequacy level of Subscribed Sources
Designation N Mean= [mu] Std. Dev.
Lecturer 88 1.7 0.713
Asst. Professor 29 1.6 0.897
Associate Professor 17 1.8 0.831
Professor 13 1.7 0.630
To great extent =3; To moderate extent = 2; To some extent = 1;
Not at all= 0
Table 9.1. ANOVA Table of Responses by Designation
Adequacy level of subscribed sources F Sig.
HEC digital sources .076 0.973
The mean difference is significant at the.05 level
Findings
The focus of the study was to assess the trends and practices of
Science faculty's of university in seeking both e-modes (OA and SA)
of online sources to meet their e-scholarly information needs. The
following findings are made on the basis of analyzed data.
To meet their e-scholarly communication needs, Science and
Engineering & Technology respondents prefer to consult OA slightly
more than others. Whereas, respondents of Life Science give equal
preferences for both modes and Pharmacy respondents showed their
preferences for 'SA' in obtaining e-journals articles. The
study also explores trends and practices of Science faculties towards
the importance and use of e-modes. It discloses that Science faculties
of PU consider direct e-access 'very important' for searching
the relevant information and 'often use' to meet their
e-information needs. Further, affiliation of ANOVA depicts that there is
no substantial difference exists in terms of the'importance'
and 'use' of both e-modes and 'Faculties'. In the
same vein, no significant difference exist in terms of
'importance' and 'use' of these modes and the
'respondent's designations'. The same fact is found true
regarding their perception of the adequacy level of 'SA'.
Conclusion
This study explores the trends and practices of accessing online
information of Science academics of higher education in developing
countries. Faculties of sciences are seeking both e-modes to meet their
e-information needs. Comparative analyses show no significant difference
in the importance and use of both modes of online sources. The study is
limited to explore the some aspects of the online sources. It is seem
imperative to explore the more subjective views of the participant in
interpretive or critical ways.
Appendix A.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Be sure that data supplied by you will be treated as confidential
and will be used for research purpose only. Please feel free in
supplying the information.
Faculty:__
Q1. How important are the following sources while searching
information on your relevant field?
Q2. How do you obtain journal articles? (Please check all that
apply)
3.1 Library's online subscription *
3.2 Other online web sources *
Q4. When in need of information, are you most likely to ...? (Check
one)
5.1 Search HEC subscribed sources *
5.2 Search other online sources *
Q5. To what extent accessibility of HEC subscribed databases
adequate enough to meet your information needs?
To great extent* To moderate extent* To some extent* Not at all*
Never used*
Appendix B.
LIST OF S&T FACULTIES AND DEPARTMENTS/INSTITUIONS/COLLEGES of
PU SURVEYED
1. Faculty of Life Sciences
2. Institute of Biochemistry & Biotechnology
3. Department of Botany
4. Department of Zoology
5. Department of Micro Biology & Molecular Genetics
6. Institute of Mycology & Plant Pathology
7. Department of Psychology & Applied Psychology
8. Centre for Clinical Psychology
9. Faculty of Sciences
10. Department of Physics
11. Institute of Chemistry
12. Institute of Geology
13. Centre for High Energy Physics
14. Centre for Geographic Information System (GIS)
15. Department of Space Science
16. Department of Geography
17. Centre for Clinical Psychology
18. Department of Mathematics
19. College of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences
20. Centre for Solid State Physics
21. College of Earth and Environmental Sciences
22. Punjab University College of Information technology
23. Faculty of Pharmacy
24. University College of Pharmacy
25. Faculty of Engineering & Technology
26. Institute of Chemical Engineering & Technology
27. Institute of Quality & Technology Management
28. College of Engineering and Emerging Technologies
29. Department of Metallurgy and Material Engineering
References
Chan, L., Kirsop, B., Costa, L., & Arunachalam, S. (2005).
Improving access to research literature in developing countries:
Challenges and opportunities provided by Open Access. Retrieved from
www.ifla.org/IV/ifla71/papers/150e-Chan.pdf.
Garvey, W. D. (1979), Communication: The essence of science,
facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists,
engineers and students. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Harnad, S. (1995). A subversive proposal. In Okerson, A., &
O'Donnell, J. (Eds.) Scholarly journals at the crossroads: A
subversive proposal for electronic publishing. Washington, DC:
Association of Research Libraries.
Hiller, S. & Self, J. (2002). A decade of user surveys:
utilizing a standard assessment tool to measure library performance at
the University of Virginia and the University of Washington. Retrieved
from http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/hiller1.pdf.
Jamali, H. R. (2008). What is not available online is not worth
reading? Webology, 5 (4).
Nicholas, D., Clark, D., Rowlands, I., Jamali, H. R. (2009). Online
use and information seeking behaviour: institutional and subject
comparisons of UK researchers. Journal of Information Science. Retrieved
from http://jis.sagepub.com/content/35/6/660.short(accessed
Pakistan, Higher Education Commission. (n.d.). E-reforms, Retrieved
from http://www.digitallibrary.edu.pk/Resources.php.
Poynder, R. (2004). Ten years after, Information Today. 21, (9),
1-5.
Punjab University Library (n.d). Retrieved from
http://www.pu.edu.pk/digilib/.
Robert, A. (2009). Scholarly communication in high-energy physics:
Past, present and future innovations. European Review, 17(1).
Said, A. (2006). Accessing electronic information: A study of
Pakistan's digital library. INSAP. Oxford.
Smith, E. T. (2003). Changes in faculty reading behaviours: The
impact of electronic journals at the University of Georgia, Journal of
Academic Librarianship. 29 (3),162-168.
Smith, J. G. (2007). The Impact of electronic communications on the
science communication process-investigating crystallographers in South
Africa, IFLA Journal 33 (2), 145-159.
Tahira, M. (2008). Information needs and seeking behaviour of
science and technology teachers of the University of the Punjab.
Unpublished M. Phil thesis, Lahore, University of the Punjab.
Tenopir, C. (2002). Online serials heat up. Library Journal. 127,
37-38.
Tenopir, C. (2003). Use and users of electronic library resources:
an overview and analysis of recent research studies. Report for the
Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved on April 13,
2010 from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/pub120.pdf.
Tenopir, C., & King, D. (2001). Electronic journals: How user
behaviour is changing, Proceedings of the international online
information meeting, London, Oxford.
Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of
engineers, New York, Wiley Interscience.
Waldrop, M. M. (2008, May). Science 2.0--Is open access science the
future? Scientific American Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0.
Muzammil Tahira
Universiti of Teknologi, Johor, Malaysia,
[email protected]
Kanwal Ameen
Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan,
[email protected]
Rosa Alinda Alias
Universiti of Teknologi, Johor, Malaysia
Tahira, Muzammil; Ameen, Kanwal; and Alias, Rosa Alinda,
"Trends and Practices of Seeking Online Information Sources: The
Case of Science Faculties of a Developing Country" (2012). Library
Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 816.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/816
Muzammil Tahira
PhD Student
Department of FSKSM
Universiti of Teknologi
Skudai-81310, Johor, Malaysia
[email protected]
Kanwal Ameen
Professor and Chairperson
Department of LIS
University of the Punjab, Pakistan
[email protected]
Rose Alinda Alias
Professor and Dean of SPS
Universiti Teknologi
Skudai-81310, Johor, Malaysia
