Seeking online information sources among science faculties of developing countries.

Tahira, Muzammil

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, Muzammil, 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 says that in principal, this 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 this initiative is positively debated by faculty members and academic officers at some prestigious institutions by notion "NO" to 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 ebooks. 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 preferred e-mode for obtaining journals articles?

2. Is there any significant difference exist due to the importance assign to 'SA' and 'OA' in search of relevant information and "science faculties'?

3. Is there any significant difference exist due to the importance assign to 'SA' and 'OA' in search of relevant information and "respondent's designation"?

4. Is there any significant difference exist about the use of 'SA' and 'OA and "science faculties"?

5. Is there any significant difference exist about the use of 'SA' and 'OA and ""respondent's designation"?

6. Is their any significant difference to assign level of adequacy level of SA" and "science faculties"? and

7. Is their any significant difference to "assign level of 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 teachers working in the 25 institutions/colleges/departments (Appendix B) of all four S&T 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 Interpretation

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 Table1. 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).

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).

Preference for E-Scholarly Communication

Table 3 demonstrates variation in positive and negative responses about the respondents' preferences for e-scholarly communication.

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 eaccess (both modes) 'very important' in searching of relevant information.

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).

Descriptive statistics mean values ([mu]) (Table 5)on the basis of designation imply that they consider both modes of e-access important.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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'.

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'.

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 information e-scholarly information needs. Though these are not using up to the optimum level. Even though, subscribed sources by parent body are considered of high quality, but these pricey databases are also not fully exploiting. 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?

                                 Extremely    Very
Sr #   Resources                  Important    Important    Important

2.1    HEC digital library
2.2    Other online web sources

                                  Somewhat     Not
Sr #   Resources                  Important    Important

2.1    HEC digital library
2.2    Other online web sources

Q2. How do you obtain journal articles? (Please check all that apply)

3.1 Library's online subscription c

3.2 Other online web sources c

Q3. How often do you use the following sources of information?

Sr #   Sources                    Very often   Often   Occasionally

4.1    HEC subscribed databases
4.2    Other web sources

Sr #   Sources                    Rarely   Never

4.1    HEC subscribed databases
4.2    Other web sources

Q4. When in need of information, are you most likely to.....? (Check one)

5.1 Search HEC subscribed sources c

5.2 Search other online sources c

Q 5. To what extent accessibility of HEC subscribed databases adequate enough to meet your information needs?

To great extent c To moderate extent c To some extent c Not at all c Never used c

Appendix B

LIST OF S&T FACULTIES AND DEPARTMENTS/INSTITUIONS/COLLEGES of PU SURVEYED

1. Faculty of Life Sciences

1 . Institute of Biochemistry & Biotechnology

2. Department of Botany

3. Department of Zoology

4. Department of Micro Biology & Molecular Genetics

5. Institute of Mycology & Plant Pathology

6. Department of Psychology & Applied Psychology

7. Centre for Clinical Psychology

2. Faculty of Sciences

1. Department of Physics

2. Institute of Chemistry

3. Institute of Geology

4. Centre for High Energy Physics

5. Centre for Geographic Information System (GIS)

6. Department of Space Science

7. Department of Geography

8. Centre for Clinical Psychology

9. Department of Mathematics

10. College of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences

11. Centre for Solid State Physics

12. College of Earth and Environmental Sciences

13. Punjab University College of Information technology

3. Faculty of Pharmacy

1. University College of Pharmacy

4. Faculty of Engineering & Technology

1. Institute of Chemical Engineering & Technology

2. Institute of Quality & Technology Management

3. College of Engineering and Emerging Technologies

4. 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 April 20,2009 from www.ifla.org/IV/ifla71/papers/150eChan.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 April 13, from http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/hiller1.pdf.

Jamali, H. R. (2008). "What is not available online is not worth reading?", Webology, Vol.5 No. (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. available at http://jis.sagepub.com/content/35/6/660.short(accessed 1st April, 2010)

Pakistan, Higher Education Commission. (n.d.). "E-reforms", available at http://www.digitallibrary.edu.pk/Resources.php. (accessed 2, April 2010)

Poynder, R. (2004)."Ten years after", Information Today. Vol. 21, No. 9, pp. 1-5.

Punjab University Library (n. d). available at http://www.pu.edu.pk/digilib/ (accessed January 15, 2010)

Robert, A. (2009). "Scholarly Communication in high-energy physics: Past, present and future innovations" European review, issue 17, No.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 on the University of Georgia", The Journal of Academic Librarianship, issue 29, No.3, pp.162-168.

Smith, J. G. (2007). "The Impact of electronic communications on the science communication process-investigating crystallographers in South Africa", IFLA Journal, Vol. 33, No.2, pp.145-159.

Tahira, Muzammil. (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, Vol. 127, pp. 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", available at http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/pub120.pdf. (accessed at 13 March, 2010).

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. available at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0., (accessed at 20 April 2009).

Muzammil Tahira

PHD candidate in IS, UTM

FSKSM, Johor, Malaysia

Member PLA, SLA & PULISAA

Country Representative of SLA (Asian Chapter)

Table 1. Response Rate of S& T Faculties of PU

                       Total
                       Faculty                           Percentage
Rank   Faculty         Members   Present   Respondents   Response

1      Engineering &   36        30        25            83
       Technology

2      Science         138       116       89            77

3      Pharmacy        22        15        10            67

4      Life Science    71        59        32            54

       Total           267       220       156           71

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

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 &     Library online subscription   24     16     8
Technology        Other online sources          24     19     5

Pharmacy          Library online subscription   10     10     0
                  Other online sources          10     7      3

Table 4. The Importance of Subscribed and Open Access Sources in
Search of Relevant Information

                                            Mean =
Faculty         Sources                n    [micro]    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

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

Table 5. Designation and Importance of Subscribed and Open Access
Sources in Search of Relevant Information

Faculty 's'       Importance of               Mean =    Std.
Designation       online sources         n    [micro]   Dev.

Lecturer          HEC digital sources    91   3.0       1.024
                  Other online sources   91   3.3       0.761

Asst. Prof        HEC digital sources    29   3.3       0.897
                  Other online sources   27   3.2       0.943

Associate Prof    HEC digital sources    18   3.2       0.984
                  Other online sources   18   3.5       0.618

Professor         HEC digital sources    14   3.1       0.949
                  Other online sources   14   3.5       0.518

Extremely Important = 4; Very important = 3; Important = 2; Some
what important = 1; Not important = 0

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

Table 6. Often Use of E-Sources by Science Faculties

                                                 Mean =    Std.
Faculty            E-Sources                N    [micro]   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

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

Table 7. Often Use of E-Sources by Designation

                                                Mean =    Std.
Designation       Use of online sources    N    [micro]   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

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

Table 8. Faculties and adequacy level of Subscribed Sources

                                 Mean =
Faculty                     n    [micro]   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

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

Table 9. Designation and Adequacy level of Subscribed Sources

                            Mean =    Std.
Designation            n    [micro]   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