Tom KwanyaPhD Candidate

University of Kwa Zulu Natal

Research summary presented at the UNISA Doctoral Forum in Pretoria, March 4, 2009

BackgroundThe emergence of the ICT revolution has

drastically changed the way people seek and use information.

Center for Information Behaviour and Evaluation Research (CIBER) released a report in 2008 that indicates that people currently exhibit a new information seeking behaviour which is not compatible with the traditional library models of service.

The report says that users are “promiscuous”, skimming and bouncing off information resources.

BackgroundCIBER’s report further says that the users:

Have high ICT competencies;Prefer interactive to passive information

systems;Have a higher cyber (electronic) than offline

presence (text more than talk);Multi-task;Prefer infotainment content;Exhibit zero tolerance to delays in information

services provisions;Rely on their peers more than experts;

BackgroundFeel the need to remain constantly “connected”;Believe everything is on the web; andAre format agnostic.

This new information seeking behaviour, as reported by CIBER, seems to influence the perception of most library users about the institutions and services.

OCLC’s 2005 report on perceptions of libraries shows that:Library users only prefer libraries for borrowing

books;Many current library users indicate that they will

stop using the libraries soon;

BackgroundUsers want library services that fit their

lifestyles and not vice versa;Users want to self-serve; Essentially users want to get information

anytime anywhere anyhow;Libraries are neither the first nor the only stop

for information; Users find it easier and more rewarding to

“google” than visit a physical library; andUsers feel that libraries are about documents,

not information.

BackgroundResearch by Public Access Computing Project

(PACP) also reveals (through circulation statistics) that usage of traditional library resources has been on a constant decrease since the mid 1990s while their electronic counterparts have been soaring.

PACP also reports increase in the use of libraries with Internet and other online services and suggests that including Internet services actually increases the usage levels of libraries.

BackgroundBut there are scholars (Mark Herring, Garry

Price, Larry Borsato, Corrine Jörgensen ) who are of the view that the value of the “internetization” of library services is overhyped.

They point out that:The Internet cannot substitute libraries;The Internet does not have everything as assumed;The Internet lacks quality control so content

credibility is low;The Internet is not really ubiquitous, even in

developed countries;Internet mostly provides mere links and not

information.

BackgroundThese scholars conclude that though the Internet

may marginalize the library in certain respects, it cannot completely replace it.

They suggest that it is important for the Internet and Library to develop a complementary model in which they synergize and make libraries a preferred destination; not just an afterthought.

Could this complementary model be Library 2.0? If so, how can it help research libraries which are one of the most affected library typologies?

Research Libraries in KenyaResearch Libraries in Kenya basically face the

following challenges (from KLA discussions):High expectations from individual researchers and

institutions;Dwindling budgets;High obsolescence rates for information resources;Lack of trained professionals capable of meeting the

demands of the researchers;Inadequate resource sharing and collaboration

systems;Poor of information capture and dissemination

habits;

Research Libraries in KenyaKnowledge gaps – not being able to cope with the

rapidly changing trends;Poor state of ICT systems and knowledge;Marginalization of library staff from the real

“center” of power in the organizations – generally regarded as mere support staff; and

Lack of a strong professional body to cater for the professional and other needs of the librarians.

In Kenya, however, these are the best (collection, budget, ICT systems, etc) libraries compared to public, school or academic libraries.

Library 2.0Many definitions exist; there is no agreement yet.It is a spin-off the Web 2.0 concept.Some scholars (Casey, Savastinuk, Miller,

Rothman, Cohen, Chad, Blyberg, Albanese, Maness, Habib, Crawford) posit that it is the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to library services and collections.

The same group of scholars identify the following as the principles of Library 2.0:The library is everywhere;The library has no barriers;The library invites participation; andThe library uses flexible best of breed systems.

Library 2.0There is agreement that Library 2.0

represents a change in librarianship but no consensus on the nature of that change:Some scholars opine it is revolutionary;Others argue that it is evolutionary; andYet others assert that it is neither evolutionary

nor revolutionary – just normal change.There are many controversies around Library

2.0 concept:Is it better than “Library 1.0” ?

Library 2.0Walt Crawford proposes a distinction between

Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”. He asserts that while the former is technology mediated change in design and delivery of library services, the latter is confrontational and views librarians as rigid.

The role of ICT in Library 2.0 also remains controversial; just a hype by ICT vendors to popularize their products.

Some argue that it is a hollow concept touted by lazy librarians to deflect attention from real issues facing the profession (Rothman, Blyberg, Sheehan, Gray, Deschamps, Levine, Crawford, Mercado, Farkas).

Library 2.0Library 2.0 is a commitment to assess, improve,

integrate and communicate library services using the newest information technology and the tried and true “human technology” (Casey and Savastinuk).

There is a great synchronicity between librarianship and Web 2.0 through the “read/write” features enabling library users to have greater control over the services they are offered by the libraries (Maness).

Blyberg identifies catalogues as one of the areas proposed for a drastic shift in terms of access and control.

Library 2.0Practitioners and scholars report discernible resistance

to Library 2.0 (Crawford, Smith, Cohen, Miller).They suggest that this could be attributed to the

following:Librarians think they know more than the users;Librarians do not encourage users to search for

themselves;Librarians still prefer to use the old-time tested

techniques of information searching and retrieval;Librarians want to classify as much information as

possible; andLibrarians operate in bureaucratic environments – no

space for adventure.

Library 2.0David Lee King proposes a framework for

implementing Library 2.0.Begins with the traditional library as we know it

today;Augmenting traditional libraries – adding search

engines, online databases, email referencing, etc;Scanning the horizons for new technologies and

techniques usable in the library;Experimentation with the emerging technological

tools;Customer participation in testing and adopting the

tools;Community creation and engagement.

Library 2.0The following have been identified as the

major challenges facing libraries attempting to implement Library 2.0 (Helling):High staff turnovers, especially if any members

of the core team are involved;Use of inappropriate Library 2.0 tools;Resistance to change by various members of

the library community; andSome of the core services or tools may be

outside the direct control of the implementing libraries.

Library 2.0In such cases, the following best practices

have been suggested by professionals who have implemented the model:Constant training and re-training of staff to

boost the competence pool;Preparation of adequate budgets for 2.0 model

tools as well as the staff to handle them;Reduction of the level of third party 2.0 service

dependencies; andEstablishment of the services the clients really

want so as to minimize resistance.

Library 2.0Andrea Wright suggests the following “ten

commandments” for effective Library 2.0 implementation:Listen to your staff;Involve staff in planning;Tell stories – demonstrate why and how;Be transparent;Report and debrief;Do your research;Manage projects efficiently and effectively;Formally convene the Emerging Technology Group;Training 2.0: Let everyone play and experience; andCelebrate success.

Research Objectives/QuestionsUnderstand the role of research libraries in Kenya

What is the vision of research libraries in Kenya?What is the mission of research libraries in Kenya?Overall, what is the role in research libraries in

Kenya?How well has this role been played?How are the roles of research libraries in Kenya

changing in light of the information revolution?Understand the operations of research libraries in

KenyaWhat service models are currently employed by the

research libraries in Kenya?

Research Objectives/QuestionsHow effective are these models in fulfilling the

vision and mission of the libraries?How are the models applied compliant to the

provisions and requirements of the Freedom of Information Policy (2006) as well as the Kenya National ICT Policy (2006)?

Are there any social networks existing in the ecosystems of these libraries? What is their current impact? How can they benefit the library?

What are some of the challenges already identified by the libraries and their communities of users?

Research Objectives/QuestionsIdentify and explore other models of library

service that could be adopted by the research libraries in KenyaWhat other library service models exist?What are their advantages and disadvantages for

research libraries in Kenya?Explore the Library 2.0 Model

What is Library 2.0?What are the controversies around the model?Which libraries have adopted this model?Which lessons can be learnt from their experience?What is the future of Library 2.0?

Research Objectives/QuestionsApplying the Library 2.0 Model for Research

Libraries in KenyaWhat are the benefits of adopting the model for

research libraries in Kenya?What challenges are the libraries likely to face

when adopting this model?What is the plan of action that should be taken

by research libraries in Kenya seeking to become Research Library 2.0?

Theoretical FrameworkDavid Lee King Ripple Effect Framework –

for Library 2.0 implementationManess’ four theories of Library 2.0:

It is user centered It provides a multi-media experience It is socially rich It is community innovative

TheoriesConversation theory, Social Network Theory,

Network Effect Multiplier

Research MethodologyQualitative interpretive researchCase study research methodCases – Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

(KARI), Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), African Medical & Research Foundation (AMREF), International Centre for Agroforestry Research (ICRAF), and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

The choice of cases is based on:The general perception of the libraries’ and their

parent institutions’ commitment to excellent research both locally and internationally;

Research MethodologyRepresentation of the local (KEMRI and KARI) and

the international (AMREF, ICRAF and ILRI) scenarios which will enable the researcher to obtain diversified findings which can be applied both locally and internationally;

Ease of access and anticipated cooperation from the librarians due to existing rapport between them and the researcher;

The current level of adoption of new technologies in the delivery of library information services to the users;

The large and remarkably diverse population of the research communities served by these libraries; and

The expressed desire and willingness of the libraries to constantly modernize and transform their models and delivery of services.

Data Collection TechniquesData collection techniques to be used:

Documentary analysisIndividual face to face interviewsFocus Group DiscussionsObservationsMystery Shopping

Individual interviews for librarians and library users will be conducted by research assistants who are graduates of Information Science using semi-structured questionnaires.

FGDs for librarians and users will be done by the researcher using appropriate interview guides.

Data Collection TechniquesResearcher and assistants will selectively

conduct participant observations directly and through mystery shopping at all the cases.

FGDs will be recorded on tape for further reference and back-up.

Secondary data will be collected from books, journals, white papers, professional articles and online resources.

Data AnalysisData will be analyzed through:

Content AnalysisConversation AnalysisDescriptive/Interpretive TechniquesComputer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis

Software (CAQDAS) Non-numerical Unstructured Data with Indexing,

Searching and Theorizing (NUD*IST) software (Nvivo)Reliability will be ensured through accurate

coding, issuing explicit instructions to the participants in the project as well as maintaining objectivity throughout the process .

Data AnalysisValidity threats are likely to come from

Hawthorne Effect (e.g. librarians performing much better because they are aware that they are being observed) and Halo Effect (observations influenced by the researcher’s impression of the subjects).

However, the researcher will strive to ensure the study achieves high validity through triangulation and use of appropriate samples which are truly representative of the research population.

ChallengesThis is a relatively new discipline; limited

information resources.There is also limited theory development for

the subject.Lack of ubiquity of ICTs and the requisite

infrastructure.

Asanteni. Siyabonga.