Annals of Library Science and Documentation 43, 1; 1996; 26-33.

LIBRARY DEPARTMENTALIZATIONS: THEIR INFLUENCE ON PUBLICATION OUTPUT AMONGLIBRARIANS IN NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES

U. SELONG EDEMMORA YO I. ATINMOUniversity of CalabarP.M.B.1115CalabarCross River StateNigeria

A questionnaire survey of 202 librarians from 28university libraries in Nigeria was conducted todetermine the influence of various library depart-ments on publication output among librarians inNigerian universities over a period of 1985-1992.To assess publication output, a one way analysisof variance statistics (ANOVA) was used to com-pare librarians from seven major library depart-ments. The results of empirical analysis indicatedthat the librarians who work in university librarian'sdepartment produced the highest quantity of aca-demic publications, followed by librarians who workin subject/college libraries and cataloguing depart-ments. The' librarians in research library depart-ments produced the highest quantity of work-re-lated publications, followed by librarians in sub-ject/college libraries and acquisition departments.

INTRODUCTION

A typical Nigerian university library could be di-vided into seven main departments, namely, (a)Circulation, (b) Reference, (c) Acquisition, (d) Cata-loguing, (e) Research, (f) University Librarian's, and(g) Subject/College Library. Each of the abovedepartments is made up of several sections. Theactivities of some sections or departments are vis-ible to users of the library while those of others arenot [1].

Between 1948-1989, some Nigerian universitieshad already classified their librarians as academicstaff while a few did not. According to Decree No.16 of 1990, the National Universities Commission(NUC), legislated that librarians in all Nigerian uni-versities would have academic status. By this De-cree, the National Universities Commission wasempowered to playa supervisory role in both theFederal and State universities [2]. One of the clearimplications of the new unambiguous academic

26

status conferred on librarians that librarians in Ni-gerian universities have to publish or perish. Thismeans that librarians working in Nigerian universi-ties are expected to write and publish researchpapers, journal articles and books, like their teach-ing counterparts - university lecturers, before theyare promoted or elevated. Publication output en-hances their status or rank and salary position inthe university environment. Several research stud-ies have indicated the justification for librarians topublish [3,4,5,6,7].

It is an old saying that the library building repre-sents 5%, the book collection 20%, while the staffrepresent 75% of what it takes to make 'a goodlibrary [8]. The various library departments or divi-sions have different needs, duties, expectationsand challanges for librarians. The duties performedby librarians in various departments may havepositive or negative influence on their job perfor-mance. This trend, though of great importance indeveloped countries, gains little or no recognitionin developing countries like Nigeria. Consequently,over-staffing or under-staffing of some library de-partments or divisions to the detriment of othersare experienced which may have positive or nega-tive influence on job performance and may, sub-sequently, affect their publication productivity,

It seems that the influence of a library departmentcould elicit assessment of publication output amonglibrarians in universities. With the recent focus onspecialization in academics or university environ-ments, there has been increasing interest in ex-amining a specific form of deviation, particularlydepartmental, in publication output [9]. Olsgaardand Olsgaard [10] observed that the stock in tradein librarianship were communication and transferof knowledge, though little is known about the com-munication of ideas within the profession. The au-

Ann Lib Sci Doc

LIBRARY DEPARTMENTALIZATIONS: THEIR INFLUENCE ON PUBLICATION OUTPUT

thors conclude that hbrarianship is sadly behindthe disciplines of economics, psychology and thesciences in determining the bibliometric nature ofthe professional literature.

Writing in support of librarians to write and pub-lish, Raymond et al [11] had earlier argued thatlibrarians working in university libraries, irrespec-tive of their departments or divisions should seethemselves as being involved in two informationcycles - a publication cycle which involves the pro-duction of new knowledge, its formalization and itsstorage and use; and a demand cycle - providinginformation to library users or clients. By so doing,these scholars observed that by taking active partin the publication cycle, librarians could competewith their teaching counterparts in the universityenvironment. University libraries are the nervecentres of higher educational institutions of learn-ing, teaching and research. The primary duties ofuniversity librarians are not only to acquire anddisseminate information to clients or users but also,to contribute in extending the frontiers of knowl-edge by publishing significant research, like theirteachi~g counterparts.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Not much work has been done on the influence oflibrary departmentalization on publication produc-tivity of librarians, especially, in developing coun-tries such as, Nigeria. However, a few studies havebeen conducted in developed countries. Watson[12] noted that librarians who were library admin-istrators (7 percent), branch and departmental li-brarians (43 percent), subject and technical spe-cialists (29 percent) as against supervised librar-ians comprising reference and acquisition, cata-loguers and branch library assistance (15 percent)produced the majority of publications when com-pared among librarians from the various other li-brary departments in university libraries in theUnited States of America. Similarly, Kendrick [13]compared the publications output of academic busi-ness librarians with and without faculty rank in uni-versity librarians in the United States of America.His research findings showed that librarians withfaculty rank published more per person than librar-ians without faculty rank though the difference wasnot much to indiate that the results came from twodifferent groups. The results suggest that facultyrank and eligibility for tenure do not have the de-

Vol 43 No 1 March 1996

sired effect of increasing the scholarly activity ofacademic business librarians as it relates to publi-cation productivity.

Nwafor 114] found from a sample of 39 librariansdrawn from selected academic and public librar-ies located in Plateau and Anambra States of Ni-geria that the publication output of librarians fromreference, circulation and acquisition departmentswere very low when compared with librarians fromother departments.

Rayman and Goudy [15] argued that ''for alilibrar-ians in the various departments of university library,the task to publish will be a difficult exercise". Simi-larly, Mitchell and Swieszkowski [16] also held thesame view about librarians in university libraries.In the absence of a local empirical study to counterRayman and Goudy's assertion [15] , this paperexamines the influence of departmentalization onpublication output among librarians in Nigerianuniversities, tested with the following hypotheses:

i) There is no significant difference in library departments of librarians' academic publicationoutput in Nigerian universities.

ii) There is no significant difference in library de-partments of librarians' work related publica-tion output in Nigerian universities.

For the purpose of clarity, publication output sur-vey statistics were categorised into two dimensions-academic publication output, comprising of jour-nal articles, books, accepted or published confer-ence/workshop papers, and work related publica-tion output, comprising of abstracts, indexes, bib-liographies and in-house publications accepted orpublished by the librarian. Such academic and workrelated publication output were assumed to havehad local, national and·international book/serialnumbers of ISBN or ISSN.

METHODOLOGY

A stratified random sampling method was used toselect 202 librarians working in 28 out of the 35universities in Nigeria. All the universities werecategorised into five groups consisting of(a) Federal universities;(b) Universities of agriculture;(c) State universities;

27

U. SELONG EDEM and MORAYO L ATINMO

(d) State universities of technology; and(e) Federal universities of technology.

Their names or status were used as a major crite-rion for belonging to a group and the aesteriskedones (*) in the Appendix were randomly sleetedfor the study. Furthermore, a simple random sam-pling method was used to select universities fromeach of the five groups for the study. The essenceof these two sampling methods was to ensure equalprobability of being selected. Finally, all the librar-ians found in the sampled universities were givenquestionnaires irrespective of sex, age, status and

library department or division. However, only thelibrarians who had spent at least four years in aparticular division were found worthy to be usedfor the study analysis.

202 librarians filled in and returned the question-naires correctly, representing 72.66% responserate. 23 (11.38%) librarians refused to disclose theirwork division or department (Table 1).

Indeed, the question enabled the researchers toreally determine the influence of departmentaliza-tion on publication productivity.

Table 1

Classification of librarians in library department

SI. no. Library department Frequency Valid percent

1. Circulation 31 15.352. Reference 24 11.883. Acquisition 30 14.854. Cataloguing 46 22.775. Research 22 10.896. University Librarians' 11 5.457. Subject/College 15 7.438. No response 23 11.38

Total 202 100.00%

According to table 1, the highest number of librar-ians 46 (22.77%) were found in cataloguing, fol-lowed by circulation 31 (15.35%) and 30 (14.85%)librarians in acquisition department.

Respondents were requested to check on a sixpoint scale to express their level of publicationoutput within the past seven years from 1985-1992,thus: (1) None, (2) 1-3, (3) 4-7, (4) 8-11, (5) 12-15,(6) 16 and above.

28

Quantitative values were given to the responsesin the questionnaire, as indicated above, and themeans of responses were computed for each pub-lication output dimension. For the seven library di-visions or departments in Nigerian universities; theone way analysis of variance statistics (ANOVA)was used to compare the difference of the meanscores of the departments with regard to their pub-lication output. Furthermore, the mean and stan-pard deviation scores of the publication output di-

Ann Lib Sci Doc

LIBRARY DEPARTMENTALIZATIONS: THEIR INFLUENCE ON PUBLICATION OUTPUT

mensions were computed and used in determin-ing the study results. The calculated F-value ratiowas used to really determine the library depart-ment which had the greatest influence on publica-tion productivity. The two null hypotheses weretested at the 0.05 level of significance.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

In testing hypothesis 1, a one way analysis of vari-ance statistics (AN OVA) was used to compare li-brarians from the seven identified library depart-ments regarding their academic publication outputdimension in Nigerian universities (Table 2).

Table 2

Analysis of variance: influence of library department onlibrarians' academic publication output

Sl.no. Library departments Respondents X SO

1. Circulation 30 4.5333 2.51522. Reference 22 4.2273 1.34283. Acquisition 26 4.8462 1.86964. Cataloguing 40 4.9000 2.03565. Research 21 4.7619 2.27836. University Librarian's 11 8.0909 2.94807.: SubjecVColiege 13 5.4615 2.0662

Total 163 - -

ANAL YSIS OF VARIANCE

Sources of variation df SS MS F

Between Groups 6 129.6375 21.6063 4.7322*Within Groups 156 712.2643 4.5658

Total 162 814.9018 - -

·P> 0.05; df = 6,156; Critical F = 2.16

The analysis of variance shows that the calculatedF-value of 4.7322 is greater than the critical F-valueof 2.16 at 6,156 degree of freedom. This meansthat the librarians' library departments have sig-nificantly influenced the quantity of academic pub-lications produced by the librarians (*P>0.05; df =6,156; F = 4.7322). Therefore, the null hypothesis

Vo143 No 1 March 1996

stating that there is no significant difference in li-brary departments on librarians' academic publi-cation output in Nigerian universities is rejected.

Further, the librarians who work in university librar-ians' department produced the highest quantity ofacademic publications (mean = 8.0909), followed

29

U. SELONG EDEM and MORAYO I. ATINMO

by librarians who work in subject/college libraries(mean = 5.4615) and librarians in cataloguing de-partment came third (mean = 4.9000). The lowestquantity of academic publications came from librar-ians working in reference department (mean =4.2273).

In testing hypothesis 2, a one way analysis vari-ance statistics (AN OVA) was used to compare li-brarians from the seven identified library depart-ments regarding their work related publication out-put dimension in Nigerian universities (Table 3).

Table 3

Analysis of variance: influence of library department onlibrarians' work related publication output

Sl.no. Library departments Respondents X SD

1. Circulation 14 4.4286 0.85162. Reference 8 5.2500 1.58113. Acquisition 7 5.5714 2.22544. Cataloguing 17 5.0588 1.14405. Research 9 5.8889 1.83306. University Librarian's 3 4.3333 0.57747. Subject/College 6 5.6667 1.6330

Total 64 - -

ANAL YSIS OF VARIANCE

Sources of variation df SS MS F

Between Groups 6 17.2615 2.8769 1.3841*Within Groups 56 118.4729 2.0785 -

Total 62 135.7344 - -

*df = 6,56; Critical F = 2.27

The result of one way analysis of variance showsthat the calculated F-value of 1.3841 is less thanthe critical F-value of 2.27 at 6,56 degree of free-dom. This means that the various library depart-ments in the university libraries do not significantlyinfluence work related publication output. There-fore, the null hypothesis stating that there is nosignificant difference in library departments on li-brarians' work related publication output in Nige-

30

rian universities is accepted.

Also, that librarians in research library departmentproduced the highest quantity of work related pub-lications (mean = 5.8889) followed by librarians insubject/college library department (mean = 5.6667)and acquisition department librarians came third(mean = 5.5714). The lowest quantity of work re-lated publications was produced by librarians inuniversity librarian's department (mean = 4.3333).

Ann Lib Sci Doc

LIBRARY DEPARTMENTALIZATIONS: THEIR INFLUENCE ON PUBLICA TlON OUTPUT

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The study results have shown that some librarydepartments or divisions have significantly influ-enced the quantity of academic publications pro-duced by librarians. This corroborates with resultsof previous studies. For instance, Watson [12] andNwafor [14] revealed that library administrators,branch and departmental librarians and subject!technical specialists published more articles thantheir counterparts in other departments of the li-brary. This could be explained by the fact that thesegroups of librarians have more time and are al-ready occupying top ranking positions. Conse-quently, they could devote more time for them-selves for writing and publishinq,

A significant trend observed in the study results isthat librarians in university librarian'S departmenthave the highest quantity of academic publicationsto their credit. This could be explained by the factthat this group of librarians (University/DeputyUniversity Librarians), apart from having enoughtime, have resources, experience or maturity forwriting for publishing.

On the contrary, librarians working in departments,like reference division who may have numerousreaders to attend to may not have adequate timefor research and publication activities. The sameapplies to librarians in circulation and acquisitiondepartments. In fact, this assertion has been con-firmed by Nwafor [14] who noted that some librar-ians in reference, circulation and acquisition de-partments had low quantity of publications andmajority of them did not have any publications.

A significant aspect of the survey shows the influ-ence of the library department where a librarian'Sworks influence his/her quantity of publications bygiving adequate time and resource materials towrite or compile something meaningful for publi-cations like journal articles, abstracts, indexes andbibliographies.

CONCLUSION

The study results point out that some library de-partments such as, university librarians', subject!college, cataloguing, research and acquisition sig-nificantly influenced the quantity of publications pro-duced by librarians in Nigerian universities. It em-

Vol 43 No 1 March 1996

phasizes the need for rotational transfer within thevarious departments among librarians in Nigerianuniversities and spendi,ng a minimum of four yearsin a particular department before transfer, to en-hance publication productivity.

Joint, corporate and multiple authorship of researchpapers should be encouraged among librarians ir-respective of library department, age, sex, statuswithin and outside the library environment. Inter-departmental researches should be encouragedamong librarians. Furthermore, interdisciplinaryresearches should equally be encouraged amonglibrarians, arcruvists and information scientists andother related fie-Id specialists.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank the University of Cala-bar Research Grant Committee for providing fundsfor this research study to be undertaken.

REFERENCES

1. OLANLOKUN (S 0) and SALISU (T M). Un-derstanding the library: a handbook on libraryuse. 1985. Concept Publications; Lagos. p.25.

2. IFIDON (Sam E). Publishing of library jour-nals in Nigeria. Third World Librarians. 3, 2;1993, Spring; 47.

3. HARVEY (J F). Advancement in the libraryprofession. Wilson Lib. Bull. 36; 1961, Octo-ber; 146.

4. BLOOMFIELD (M). The writing habits of li-brarians. 27; 1966, March; 106.

5. HARRISON (K C). Librarians as authors. Lib.Assoc. Rec. 84; 1984, May; 200.

6. COUGHLIN (C) and SNELSON (P). Search-ing for research in ACRL conference papers.Jour. Acad. Libr. 9, 1; 1983, March; 21.

7. ISAAC (F). Librarians, scholar or author? Thelibrarians' new dilemma. Jour. Acad. Libr. 9,4; 1983; 216.

31

U. SELONG EDEM and MORAYO t. ATINMO

8. WHEELER (J L) and HERBERT (G). Practi- academic librarians. Coli. Res. Lib. 38, 5;cal administration of public libraries. 1978. 1977; 375.Harper and Row; New York. pp. 375-11.

13. KENDRICK (A). A comparison of publication9. EDEM (U S). Job satisfaction and publica- output for academic business librarians with

tion output among librarians in Nigerian uni- or without faculty rank. Jour. Acad. Libr. 17,versities: a Ph.D. Dissertation. 1993. Univer- 3; 1991; 147.sityof Ibadan; p.239.

14. NWAFOR (B U). Nigerian librarians and pub-10. OLSGAARD (J N) and OLSGAARD (Jean K). lishing. Nigerian Libraries. 23, 1&2; 1987; 54.

Authorship in five library periodicals. Coli.Res. Lib. 41, 1; 1980; 52. 15. RAYMAN (R) and GOUDY (FW). Researrch

and publication requirements in university li-11. RAYMOND (0 A), SINCLAIR (M P) and braries. Col/. Res. Lib. 41, 1; 1980; 42.

BROWN (E). University libraries and univer-sity research. Coli. Res. Lib. 11, 4; 1973, No- 16. MITCHELL (W B) and SWIESZKOWSKI (Lvember; 447. S). Publication requirements and tenure ap-

proval rates: an issue for academic librarians.12. WATSON (P de S). Publishing activity among Coli. Res. Lib. 46; 1985, May; 253.

32 Ann Lib Sci Doc

LIBRARY DEPARTMENTALIZATIONS: THEIR INFLUENCE ON PUBLICATION OUTPUT

APPENDIX

ALL THE NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES AND THE ONES SAMPLED (*) FOR THE STUDY

GROUP A: FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES (CONVENTIONAL)

1. "AhmaduBelloUniversity,Zaria2. 'University of Abuja,Abuja3. "BayeroUniversity,Kano4. "Universityof Bein,Benin-City5. "Universityof Calabar,Calabar6. "Universityof Ibadan,Ibadan7. "Universityof llorin, llorin8. "Universityof Jos, Jos9. "Universityof Lagos,Lagos

10. "Universityof Maiduguri,Maiduguri11. "ObafemiAwolowoUniversity,lIe-lte12. 'Universityof Port-Harcourt,Port-Harcourt13. "UsmanDanFodioUniversity,Sokoto14. "Universityof Nigeria,Nsukka15. "Universityof Uyo,Uyo.

GROUP B: FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES OF AGRICULTURE

16. "Universityof Agriculture,Abeokuta17. Universityof Agricuiture,Makurdi18. Universityof Agriculture,Umunike

GROUP C: FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES OF TECHNOLOGY

19. 'AbubakarTafawaBalewaUnlversity,8auchi20. 'Federal Universityof Technology,Akure21. "FederalUniversityof Technology,Owerri22. "FederalUniversityof Technology,Minna23. 'Federal Universityof Technology,Vola

GROUP D: STATE UNIVERSITIES

24. 'Edo StateUniversity,Ekpoma25. 'Abia StateUniversity,Okigwe26. 'Lagos StateUniversity,Ojo, Lagos27. 'Nnamdi AzikiweUniversity,Awka28. 'Ogun StateUniversity,Ago Iwoye29. OndoState University,Ado Ekiti30. DeltaState University,Abraka31. KanoStateUniversity,Kano32. BenueStateUniversity,Makurdi

GROUP E: STATE UNIVERSITIES OF TECHNOLOGY

33. EnuguStateUniversityof Technology,Enugu34. 'Ladoke AkintolaUniversityof Technology,Ogbomosho35. 'Rivers StateUniversityof ScienceandTechnology,Port-Harcourt.

Vol 43 No I March 1996 33