Organizational Schemes of InformationResources in Top 50 Academic BusinessLibrary Websitesby Soojung Kim and Elizabeth DeCoster

This paper analyzes the organizationalschemes of information resources found intop 50 academic business library websites

through content analysis and discussesthe development and evaluation of the

identified schemes.

Soojung Kim,College of Information Studies,

University of Maryland, College Park,MD 20742, USA

<kimsoojung1@gmail.com>;Elizabeth DeCoster,

College of Information Studies,University of Maryland, College Park,

MD 20742, USA<ejdecost@umd.edu>.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 37, Number 2, pages 137–1

INTRODUCTIONWebsites are the primary starting point for anyone who wants toaccess a variety of library resources available to them through thelibrary from off-campus. Robust library websites should not onlyserve as gateways to a varied collection of information resources, butfunction as sophisticated guidance systems which support usersacross a wide range of information seeking behaviors, from goal-directed search to aimless browsing.1

The way resources are organized strongly influences users' choicesof which resources to use in library websites. Traditional restrictionson information organization and presentation are no longer aslimiting in an online information environment. Librarians are nowrequired to create effective and usable organizational schemes thatcan allow users to identify appropriate information resources. Theseorganizational schemes for information resources can vary dramat-ically between websites. Some schemes provide a simple alphabeticlist of resources, while others provide value-added annotations, andyet others guide users through a research process for a particularcourse. An evaluation of these schemes should not be limited tousability, but should instead provide a framework for identifying andevaluating these schemes, and should include consideration of theinstructional value of the schemes.

This study updates findings from a previous study2 of theorganizational schema of academic business library websites. Itexamines and reviews the organizational schemes of informationresources in top 50 academic business library websites. Once thewebsites are examined, it discusses the benefits of these organiza-tional schemes from the perspective of quick access as well asinstruction using the framework developed in the 2006 study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a substantial body of literature on library website design andevaluation which investigates the content, structure, and/or labelingof library websites (for a comprehensive review on library websites,refer to Blummer3). In terms of content, identification of commonwebsite elements has been an important part of the literature acrossdifferent types of libraries: academic libraries4, Association ofResearch Libraries (ARL)-member libraries5, and science-engineeringlibraries6. Regardless of library types, the library websites were foundto present expected core functionality of libraries: links to an onlinecatalog and subscription electronic resources/databases, some form offrequently asked questions (FAQs), and pathfinders/subject guides. Asfor structure, a consistent finding is that the websites are structuredaround library functions or departmental divisions, with which usershave low familiarity.7 The researchers also noted the frequent use ofconfusing labels for links and unfamiliar library jargon. Taken alltogether, the common recommendation suggested by the research is

44 March 2011 137

to implement user-centered design principles—use the language usersare familiar with, structure information around user needs, andincrease the visibility of basic functionality.

While this line of research provides useful insights into usableinterface, another area of research that is relevant to this study isonline pathfinder literature, as it pays attention more specifically tothe organization of information resources. Most academic librariesnow provide online pathfinders (also called subject guides or topicguides) on their websites. Pathfinders are annotated bibliographies ofresources and are meant to be starting points for research in a subjectarea.8 Drawing on literature reviews, Hemmig9 found that basicguidelines for design and evaluation of pathfinders have remainedconsistent through the evolution from print pathfinders to onlineones. Analogous to general usability guidelines found in the librarywebsite literature, researchers10 stress the importance of a consistentformat and content of pathfinders, easy-to-understand labeling, auseful and clear scope, and ease of access through a library website ora library catalog (for a literature review on pathfinders, refer toVileno11). Most importantly, pathfinders should reflect users' searchprocess.12 To that end, Jackson suggested organizing resources by thetype of information rather than by format, so that users can find allinformation on a specific topic without being concerned with whichformat the needed information is in.13 Kapoun14 and Thomson andStevens15 argued that reflecting users' search process does not meanimposing a pre-determined search process; instead pathfindersshould allow users to develop their own search process. In the samevein, Kuhlthau advocated “a process approach” that aims to fosterusers' reasoning process skills for problem solving in user instruc-tion.16 This approach contrasts with a traditional “source approach”emphasizing the characteristics and use of a specific resource, and a“behavior approach” teaching users the sequence of resources touse.17

“Despite the benefits of integrating resourcesregardless of format, evidence is abundant that

library websites do not often provide anintegrated list of resources.”

Jackson's idea of organizing resources by type is closely related toresource integration. Despite the benefits of integrating resourcesregardless of format, evidence is abundant that librarywebsites do notoften provide an integrated list of resources. Kirkwood found that lessthan half of 63 business libraries/collections integrated their resourcesin some way on the same page under the same subject headings.18

Similarly, Abels and Magi, who analyzed the websites of 20 businessschool libraries, found that most libraries presented links to businessdatabases and websites, typically arranged in alphabetical order.19

Only approximately half of the library websites analyzed providedresources organized by topic and integrated different types ofresources. In Jackson and Pellack's study, 61% of 112 guides providedby academic libraries were arranged alphabetically and 9% wereclassified as having a random arrangement, considered a significantobstacle by the authors.20

Along with resource integration, what adds instructional values topathfinders is annotation. Annotations provide useful clues on theobjective and evaluative description of resources and instruction foraccess,21 assisting users in learning the relationships and possible usesof the resources. Amajority of academic librarywebsites in Grimes andMorris provided annotations for at least some of their subject guides22

and most business libraries surveyed in Lyons and Kirkwood'sstudy provided access to some form of instructional element

138 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

(e.g., instructional information on either a specific database or on aspecific subject area).23 Obviously, librarians are aware that pathfin-ders should teach users on the effective use of resources, goingbeyond simply listing resources.24

The literature review identifies several major factors in thecreation of effective pathfinders capable of pointing to relevantresources and helping users equipped with knowledge on resourcesand research abilities. Most of all, the selection of one or moreappropriate organizational schemes is a critical component infacilitating intelligent access to resources.25 An important aspect oforganizational schemes is the level of resource integration. Inaddition, annotations add values to a list of resources. The mostappropriate type of annotation(s) (e.g., annotation on a resource,access information, and a subject area) should be provided for eachtype of organizational scheme.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

SamplesIn the original study, business schools were chosen as samples

because they offered a narrow range of electronic content from alimited number of vendors and they were also relatively small inscope. Those are advantages in conducting a study, but they aredisadvantages in generalizing the findings. These disadvantages arefurther discussed in the future work section.

Selected for consideration in this study were the top fifty rankedbusiness schools in the 2009 U.S. News and World Report annualrankings.26 Each business school website was examined for either (a)a standalone business library website or (b) a business collection,within a main library, with a standalone website. Programs without adedicated online space for a business collection were not considered.Of the fifty programs examined, forty-six fulfilled these criteria. Asnoted in the list of webpage addresses in Appendix 1, these websiteswere examined in February and March, 2009.

Data AnalysisOnce the business library/collection websites were identified, the

authors examined all web pages presenting information resourcesand coded each library website independently. These individual webpages were then analyzed to determine the point of access for websiteusers and how the information resources were presented. Accesspoints are those spaces on the web page where labels are provided toassist the user in selecting their research path.When the label of a linkand an actual heading in the linked page were inconsistent, the linklabel was recorded as an access point because it is what users see andwhat makes them decide whether to pursue a search. Once accesspoints were identified, the authors explored the informationresources each access point presented. Classifications were deter-mined based on the rubric provided in the 2006 study, and newschemes were added where necessary. To explain the notation fororganizational schemes used in the study, “DB: Alpha” indicates a casein which databases are listed in alphabetical order of titles through anaccess point “Databases.” Some websites contained several layers oforganizational schemes, where users would have to click through twoor more links to view actual resources. Whether a webpage listsresources on the same page or spread them through several layers(e.g., list resources under different topics on the same page vs. listsome business topics on one page and clicking on a specific topic leadsto a new page listing actual resources), if the access point and thepresentation order were the same, the web pages were considered toprovide the same organizational scheme. Data was recorded andstored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Recorded data reflectedwhich schools' websites contained specific organizational schema.When individual guides in a specific library provided different

Table 2Top databases

Rank Database No. of LibrariesPercent(n = 17)

1 Factiva 7 41%

2 ABI/proquest 5 29%

3 Business sourcepremier

5 29%

4 Business sourcecomplete

4 24%

5 OneSource 4 24%

6 S and P net advantage 4 24%

schemes, each scheme was counted separately. Afterwards, theauthors discussed discrepancies of their coding to reach consensus.

Some academic business library website subpages were excludedfrom consideration. These include websites requiring identification(e.g., login) or websites for a non-student audience such as alumni orfaculty. Additionally, any database-specific guides/tutorials, such asthose provided by vendors, and guides for general library serviceswere excluded from analysis. Some access points, such as “Books” and“Print Collection” were excluded, as they appeared only once andwere deemed insignificant data.

RESULTS

Access PointsTable 1 shows the types of access points provided by the 46

academic business library websites, ranked by frequency of appear-ance. Access points were presented under different guises, in someinstances classified by type of resource (e.g., Databases) or by format(e.g., e-resources), and in other instances classified by process (e.g.,Research Guides/Topics). These access points indicate the level ofintegration of diverse sources. Books, databases, websites, e-books,and e-journals pages include a single type of resources while researchguides, course guides, and FAQs tend to cover diverse types ofresources relevant to a specific topic, course, or question.

As Table 1 illustrates, almost every website examined presentedaccess points for Databases and Research Guides/Topics. The occur-rence of both of Databases and Research Guides/Topics access pointsremains around 90%, as in the 2006 study. An increase is noted,however, in the occurrence of other types of instructional orassistance-based access points, specifically FAQs and Course Guides.More generic access point categories, such as Electronic Resources,remain slightly less prevalent than specific access points (e.g.,Working Papers) or thematic access points (e.g., Research Guides).One classification from the 2006 study, Top Resources, was eliminatedfor this paper by the authors. In all examined websites, Top Resourceshave become Top Databases, and are presented as such.

Table 1Access points

Rank Access pointsNo. oflibraries

Percent(n=46)

1 Databases 42 91%

1 Research Guides/topics1

42 91%

3 FAQs 21 46%

4 Top databases 19 41%

5 Course guides 16 35%

6 E-journals 13 28%

7 Working papers 8 17%

8 Articles 6 13%

9 E-books 5 11%

10 Websites 5 11%

11 Books 3 7%

12 Electronic resources 3 7%

13 Reference resources 3 7%

Note: While some websites had a separate heading “Research Guides,” “SubjecGuides,” “Topic Guides,” or “User Guides” and listed specific guides (e.g.Company Guide, Industry Guide) under it, others presented topics that lead tothe specific guides without such an overarching heading.

t,

March 2011 139

Speaking specifically to database access points, the authors noticed asignificant range in the number of databases presented. For thosebusiness library websites presenting an organizational scheme listingdatabases alphabetically, between 25 and 166 databases were listed.For those websites listing databases identified as “top” databases, asfew as 1 and as many as 50 databases were provided. Table 2 showsthe most frequently identified databases amongst those schoolsidentifying “top” databases.

Considering that Factiva, the most frequently listed database, waspresented in less than half of the libraries, the top databases did notoverlapmuch across libraries. It is speculated that librarians may havetailored their top database listings to reflect the most commonly useddatabases, or may have chosen databases by their appropriateness forthe schools' educational goals. In most instances, the criteria forlabeling a database as “top”were not specified except the cases wherethe databases were labeled as “most popular databases.”

Presentation Order of Information Resources

Table 3 shows the presentation order of information resources byorganizational schemes. Within each access point, a presentationorder or orders was identified and counted.

Table 3 illustrates several common schemes identified by theauthors. The most commonly occurring organizational scheme is “DB:Alpha,” or databases listed in alphabetical order. This scheme occurson 37 of the 46 (80%) examined websites. In cases where specificresource types (e.g., databases, e-journals) were presented together,the presentation order was commonly alphabetical. This may bebecause differentiation within a resource type is more challengingthan differentiation between resource types. Alternatively, the maingoal of an alphabetical listingmight be to show exhaustive coverage ofall resources available in the category, so the librarians did not feel aneed to categorize the resources further. An alphabetical listing ofresources can facilitate immediate access to resources when a userknows precisely which resource to use, as it provides no annotation ora brief annotation about the content of resources or accessinformation. Unlike other alphabetic listings, e-books were arrangedat the collection level instead of the individual title level.

Other commonly occurring schemes include RG: Topic, occurringon 29 of 46 websites (63%) and RG: Res, occurring on 24 out of 46websites (52%). Instances such as these present librarians with anopportunity to proffer a wide variety of resources by subtopics or byresource type respectively. To illustrate RG: Topic, an example is“Social Enterprise” research guide at the Baker library at the HarvardUniversity (http://www.library.hbs.edu/guides/socialenterprise.html). This guide arranges resources by subtopics such as Overviewsand Analysis, Governance and Leadership, and Management andPerformance. Under each subtopic, different types of resources are

Table 3Presentation order of information resources

Organizationalscheme

Accesspoint

Presentationorder

No oflibraries

Art: Alpha Articles Alphabetical 2

Art: Ins Instructionprocess

3

Art: Res Resource Type 2

CG: Alpha Courseguides

Alphabetical 2

CG: Ins Instructionprocess

3

CG: Res Resource Type 7

CG: Topic Topic 10

DB(Art): Alpha Databases Articles 2

DB: Alpha Alphabetical 37

DB: Topic Topic 19

DB: Top Topdatabases

Top 19

EB: Alpha E-books Alphabetical 5

EJ: Alpha E-journals Alphabetical 10

EJ: Topic Topic 3

ES: Topic E-resources Topic 2

FAQ: Ins FAQs Instructionprocess

21

Ref: Alpha Referenceresources

Alphabetical 2

RG: Alpha Researchguides/topics

Alphabetical 4

RG: Ins Instructionprocess

14

RG: Res Resource Type 24

RG: Topic Topic 29

Web: Topic Websites Topic 5

WO: Alpha Working papers Alphabetical 8

Total 233

140 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Table 4Example of FAQs page in the Management Library atCornell University (http://www.library.cornell.edu/

johnson/library/faq/index.html)

Where can I find information about start-ups?

One of the best ways to find information about start-ups is to keep up-to-date with business news and industry publications, such asEntrepreneur, Brandweek, Inc., Business 2.0, etc.

For more information on searching for business articles, consult ourArticle Research FAQs.

Industry analyst reports can be useful sources of information aboustart-ups. Analysts assess industries in order to determine whichonesmake the best investment prospects and research the internaand external forces shaping the industry. Full-text analyst reportsare available from Investext Plus.

integrated, combining subscribed databases, free websites, and printmaterials. Annotations are provided mostly on the content of theresources and access information, and scarcely any annotation isprovided on search tips. An example of an organization by resourcetype is the “Accounting” research guide at the University of Minnesota(http://www.lib.umn.edu/subjects/rqs/2). In this guide, abstracts andindexes are presented first, followed by catalogs/bibliographies,general reference sources, Internet resources, and style manuals/writing guides.

Some consistency can be foundbetween this and the 2006 study. Asa percentage of the total sample size, databases and research guides/topics continued to be primary access points. As previously noted, asignificant change is in the availability of instructional or assistance-based guides. Most of all, FAQs tripled their share of representation. Itis possible that with an increasing variety of available informationresources, there has been a corresponding increase in the need forassistance while using these resources. While in the past librariansmay have provided in-library assistance to students seeking research

support, growing demand for constantly accessible online supportmay explain this increase. Furthermore, the development of a businessFAQ systemmight have accelerated the provision of FAQs pages. Sincethe Lippincott library of the Wharton School at the University ofPennsylvania created a business FAQ system containing hundreds ofbusiness questions and associated answers that recommend appro-priate databases for the questions (http://faq.library.upenn.edu/recordList?library=lippincott and institution=Penn), other businesslibraries have adopted Penn's system and modified for their ownusers.27 Whether it is an interactive database system or a text-basedweb page (example shown in Table 4), listing resources by frequentlyasked questions (FAQs) has several merits. First, it provides resourcestailored to a specific question rather than to a broad business topic,which presumably better serves users having specific informationneed inmind. Second, the level of resource integration is high: answersusually present any types of resources that could contribute toanswering the question. Third, annotations typically involve searchstrategies customized to each resource as opposed to general resourcedescriptions found in an alphabetical listing of resources.

RG: Ins, CG: Ins, and Art: Ins have a high integration level ofresources and various types of annotations. These instructional schemesaim to describe a research process on a business topic or related to aspecific course, or how to find articles. As an example of RG: Ins, theresearch guide in Table 5 walks users through a step-by-step procedurefor company research, in which information resources are embeddedwhere relevant. In a broad sense, the instructional schemes couldbelong to topic-based schemes as the steps involved in the researchprocess could approximate subtopics of a broad topic. For example,Steps 1 and 2 in Table 5 are equivalent to “Company Background” and“Company Profile,” popular subtopics in topic-based company guides.However, as opposed to topic-based guides that merely break downresources by subtopic, the instructional schemes guide a user throughthe process of research so that they can achieve their goals.

The number of organizational schemes presented per libraryranged from 1 to 10 and the average was 5.3 (SD, 2.2). As for theschemes organizing databases exclusively, the range was from 0 to 4,and 28 out of 46 libraries (61%) provided more than two schemes fordatabases. The most common pattern for providing databases wasthat a library provides both an alphabetical list of databases and topdatabases. Providing multiple organizational schemes for databases isof help because users can select an appropriate scheme depending onthe purpose of their search tasks. As for research guides, the rangewas from 0 to 3, and 23 libraries (50%) provided more than twoschemes for the guides. Some libraries separated topic-basedresearch guides for facilitating access to selected sources by topicfrom more instruction-oriented guides arranging resources by an

t

l

Table 5Example of Research Guides by Instructional Process

in George A Smathers Libraries at University ofFlorida (http://businesslibrary.uflib.ufl.edu/

companyresearch)

Ten Steps to Company Intelligence

Step 1: Identify the company

First, find out who the company is and what it does. Good startingplaces are Hoover's Online and OneSource. Determine whether thecompany is publicly-owned (stock trades) or privately-held. U.S.public companies must file reports with the SEC. You can usuallyfind annual reports (Thomson Research), SEC filings (EDGAR),stock reports and brokerage-house reports (Investext onOneSource) for them. They are also more likely to make newsand be covered in the business press. All of these sources arediscussed further in the following steps.

Step 2: Profile the company

Hoover's Online excels at concisely summarizing a company's business.Their subscription Profiles are more detailed portraits that include acompany overview, company history, sales, profits, number ofemployees, principle executives, multi-year financial statements,locations, products and services, brands, and key competitors.

Omitted hereafter.

instructional process with a clear distinction between them.Providing two different organizational schemes for guides isdesirable in this case as users can achieve different goals withthem. However, a more common pattern, which is likely confusing tousers, was providing inconsistent schemes under the same heading.For example, under “Research Guides,” a “Company” research guidepresents resources by topic and an “Industry” guide by resource type.The study did not differentiate these two cases in data analysis, butfrom observation, many libraries showed such inconsistency,especially with research guides.

For other access points than databases and research guides (e.g., e-journals, working papers), the libraries had a single organizationalscheme on average. This may be because librarians did not regardthose resources as primary for information seeking, or the number ofresources was not large enough to categorize them further. Since the2006 study did not analyze this type of data, no comparison can bemade in this matter.

Comparing the findings of the 2006 study and this one, thetrends in organizational schemes presented by business libraries areas follows:

• Subscription databases are primary resources as the librarywebsites provide links to proprietary databases than any othertype. Websites, working papers, e-books, and reference collection,on the other hand, are secondary resources and often integratedwith other types of resources under a specific topic. Thedominance of fee-based databases is not surprising because theyare the most reliable and authoritative resources, for whichlibraries pay the most.28 This sentiment is shared by academiclibrarians surveyed in Gonzalez et al., who think “database access”is the most important needs of users when asked what the topneeds of their communities are.29

• Togetherwith alphabetic listings, topic-based schemes are a popularpresentation order. Typically, the librarywebsites presented a seriesof subtopics (e.g., Company Overview) related to a broad topic (e.g.,Company), and then, listed individual resources alphabeticallyunder each subtopic. In total, 39 out of 46 (85%) libraries providedresources by topic at least in one place in their websites.

• There is a movement toward increasing instructional schemes suchas FAQs and course guides. Reeb and Gibbons suggested bringingdiscipline-based subject guides to students at the class level.30 Anidea is that those guides customized to a specific questionor a coursecan give the guides' contents more immediate relevance.

“A majority of business librarians favor thecreation of guides centered on topics and

provide access to some form of instructionalelement.”

Although a direct comparison is not possible due to differentsample sets, this study confirms Lyons and Kirkwood showing that amajority of business librarians favor the creation of guides centered ontopics and provide access to some form of instructional element.31

DISCUSSION

The 2006 study developed a framework with which each organiza-tional scheme is placed in the context of others, but did not discusshow to utilize the framework for the development and evaluation oforganizational schemes in depth, which this study attempts to do.

Fig. 1 illustrates the framework in three dimensions: 1) resource/user orientation dimension, 2) resource integration dimension, and 3)user instruction dimension.

The first dimension (X-axis) signifies the extent to which resourcearrangement is aimed toward a resource-oriented or user-orientedtendency. An alphabetical list of resources is a highly resource-oriented scheme in which each resource exists separately with nohints at the relationship among resources. It is a user's responsibilityto clarify one's information need and match it with one of theresources. On the other end, an instructional process scheme is themost user-oriented because information resources are introduced tosupport students' research on a topic. Resources grouped by topics aremore user-oriented than an alphabetical list, and less user-orientedthan the instructional process scheme.

The second dimension (Y-axis) signifies the extent to whichdifferent types of resources are combined under a single subjectheading or access point. The organizational schemes that provideresources of a single type, whose notations start with DB, Web, and EJ,are located at the lowest end of the dimension. Organizationalschemes such as RG, CG, and FAQmingle a full range of resources, andare located at the highest end.

The third dimension projects diagonally to represent userinstruction. At the lowest end on both resource-integration anduser-orientation dimensions are the organizational schemes listing asingle type of resources in alphabetic order (e.g., DB: Alpha, Web:Alpha, EJ: Alpha). To take advantage of this type of scheme, a usershould decide in advance which resource type to use and whichspecific resource to select. Annotations in these schemes usuallydescribe the content of resources or access information. Users mightbe able to learn the scope of information sources available in a library,but are unlikely to learn about the relationship among resources orbusiness topics. Located at the highest ends on both dimensions, afocus is put on instruction in RG: Ins, CG: Ins, and FAQ: Ins. Theseschemes intend to seamlessly blend instruction on a business topicand appropriate resources. Annotations are provided about a businesstopic, as well as resource description and search strategies for eachresource.

This typology can be used for evaluating existing organizationalschemes and developing new ones, going beyond simply describingeach scheme based on the dimensions. When evaluating schemes, itshould be noted that those schemes located higher on a dimension

March 2011 141

Figure 1A framework for organizational schemes of resources.

Resourceintegration

User-orientation

Alphabeticalorder

Top Resourcetype

Topic Instructional process

Research guidesCourse guidesFAQs

ArticlesReference

resourcesE-resources

DB: TopDB: Alpha EB: AlphaEJ: Alpha WO: Alpha

DatabasesE-booksE-journalsWebsites

DB: TopicWeb: Topic EJ: Topic

RG: AlphaCG: Alpha

RG: InsCG: InsFAQ: Ins

RG: ResCG: Res

Art: AlphaRef: Alpha

Art: ResES: Res

Art: Ins

RG: Topic CG: Topic

Userinstruction

are not necessarily superior to those schemes located lower. Forexample, many researchers advocate high resource integrationbecause it is good for acquiring a comprehensive list of resourceson a topic regardless of format. However, low integration is betterfor accessing specific resources quickly. In much the same way,while the schemes at the lowest ends of the two dimensions arenormally suitable for users with well-defined information needsand knowledge of resources, the schemes at the highest ends areuseful for those who with poorly defined information needs andlack of knowledge of resources because they can go through step-by-step guidance in researching a topic as well as in selectingappropriate resources. Those schemes in the middle are helpful forthe users with well-defined information needs and no knowledgeof best resources because upon selecting one's information need asin the forms of topics or course names, appropriate resources aresubsequently provided.

Therefore, individual organizational schemes should be evaluatednot only by the spot they occupy within the framework, but by howwell they serve the expected function for that spot. When it comes to“top databases,” for example, this scheme supposedly provides aquick access to databases as it is highly source-oriented with a singletype of sources. Having said that, listing as many as 50 databasesunder “top databases” is unlikely to serve the expected function. “Topdatabases” should provide a core set of databases that are mostpopular or useful with a brief annotation on selection criteria. In short,this scheme should be evaluated or developed in the light of howmany databases are included bywhich criteria from the perspective ofquick access.

The organizational schemes that arrange resources by type (e.g., ES:Res, RG: Res) are alignedwith one traditional user instruction approach,which is the search strategy approach. This approachaims to teach usersthe sequence of general information gathering by providing a modelsearch rather than teaching individual resources in isolation. Themodel

142 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

search generally starts with a background resource such as anencyclopedia, moving to a catalog or reference sources for retrospectiveinformation, and endingwith databases formore current information.32

In the study, some libraries followed this traditional approach, listingbooks first and then moving on to databases and websites. However,many libraries listed databases first and print materials later, whichagain reflects librarians' penchant for databases as primary resources.Since there is no single sequence of resource types that fits every searchtask, librarians have to decide upon the most appropriate sequence fortheir purpose. The sequence of library collections through databases inlocal libraries to websites offers a generalized order of resources forresearch, whereas the sequence starting with databases can promotethe use of subscribed databases.

Research guides and course guides are designed to supportsuccessful independent research on a topic. Research/course guidesshould be evaluated from the perspective of user instruction, forexample, if a course guide fulfills the curriculumneeds of the course orif a research guide successfully fosters users’ research abilities. Firsttime users may visit a guide to learn about resources on a topic, andlater, visit other web pages such as an alphabetical list of databases toquickly access a specific database they learned from the guide before.Unfortunately, four research guides and two course guides assessed inthe study listed resources in alphabetic order of titles with no orminimum annotation. These guides can facilitate quick access toresources, but add little value to instruction because the resources aregiven with no context. Therefore, it is hard to name them “guides” in atrue sense. On the other hand, research/course guides adopting theinstruction process scheme foster learning in more meaningful ways.Librarians can implement the concept of a pathfinder reflecting thesearch process using an instruction process scheme by introducing aresearch process and giving options of resources with their character-istics for each step of the process. From this guide, users can learn aproblem solving process.

Topic-based research/course guides allow users to learn aboutsubtopics within a broader topic along with associated resources. Aseries of subtopics arranged in such a way that they lay out thewhole knowledge structure of the broad topic or the structure ofthe course content can help users obtain domain knowledge as wellas resource knowledge. Librarians can consult the table of contentsin textbooks or other materials to identify a set of major subtopicsthat constitute a broad topic. If subtopics are arranged to simulate aresearch process in the broad topic, the topic-based scheme willreach a similar level of instructional impact an instructional processscheme has.

As a whole, the framework provided by this study can assistlibrarians or website designers in developing and evaluating organi-zational schemes of resources by showing the benefits of each scheme.The individual organizational schemes serve a certain user grouphaving a certain search task. To support the full spectrum ofinformation seeking activity users bring to a library website, thelibrary websites should prepare a variety of corresponding organiza-tional schemes.

FUTURE WORK

The findings of this study suggest several areas for future research.First, as Wang and Hubbard note that there has been lack of

empirical research on the actual use of pathfinders by users, thisstudy also calls for empirical validation for the actual use of thevarious organizational schemes identified.33 Specific research ques-tions may include: 1) how does each organizational schemefacilitate information searching? 2) How do users navigate theorganizational schemes? What are their challenges? and 3) How dousers benefit from these organizational schemes? Usage statisticswill allow analysis of which organizational schemes users accessmost frequently (e.g., an alphabetical listing of databases isprevalent, but is it most frequently used by users?). More obtrusiveresearch methods such as observation and interviews will enableresearchers to examine how users actually use the organizationschemes compared with the intended use. For example, whenresources are arranged by type, from books to databases, studentsmay skip books and select a database right away, in opposition tothe expectation of librarians.

Second, this study describes how business school libraries organizeresources, but it does not delve into why they organize resources theway they do. Are resources organized as a result of a librarian'spersonal preference, instructional policies, demands from users, timeconstraints, etc.? Future research should investigate reasons behindthe practice of organizing resources and whether this practice differsdepending on disciplines. Limited to business school libraries, thefindings of this study cannot be generalized beyond those libraries.Future research is needed to examine other types of libraries anddetermine the extent to which the identified organizational schemesare generalized across disciplines.

Third, future research should incorporate usability factors into theevaluation of organizational schemes and the design of librarywebsites. The study did not examine well-known usability issuessuch as the width and depth of menus, consistency of formats acrossguides, and terminology. A future study can develop a holisticevaluation framework combining the framework used in the studyand related usability criteria to evaluate a library website from morediverse perspectives—usability, access, and instruction.

Fourth, considering that annotations play an important instruc-tional role along with organizational schemes, research should beconducted to do a more in-depth analysis of annotations, identifyingtypes of annotations and comparing level of detail on differentorganizational schemes. Morville and Wickhorst divided annotationsinto three types: 1) objective description of the content; 2) subjective

evaluation of the quality; and 3) instructions for access. These typescan be used to see what type of annotation is actually read and usefulfor fostering independent learning.34

CONCLUSION

Academic business library websites are created to serve multiplefunctions, which are sometimes in conflict with one another. They areexpected to provide both quick access to resources and to arrangeresources intomeaningful presentations for supporting instruction. Toprovide direct access to resources, librarians typically focus onresource-oriented organization, providing comprehensive access to aparticular resource type. In order to convey additional information tothe user, librarians focus on instructional processes when organizingresources.

This study, done to re-examine the results of a previous study ofthe organizational schemes of academic business library websites,updates the framework of the 2006 study and provides additionalanalysis of the organizational schemes. While alphabetical lists ofdatabases remain the most common organizational scheme, librarieshave increased the number of value-added, user-oriented schemes,such as FAQs. Future research in this area might focus on empiricalresearch into the use of these organizational schemes.

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found onlineat doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.005.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Brian Detlor & Vivian Lewis, “Academic Library Web Sites: CurrentPractice and Future Directions,” Journal of Academic Librarianship32 (May 2006): 251–258.

2. Soojung Kim, “Analyzing Organizational Schemes of InformationResources in Library Web Sites by User Education Approaches,”Proceedings of the 69th ASIST 2006 AnnualMeeting, 43 (2006): 1–17.

3. Barbara A. Blummer, “A Literature Review of Academic LibraryWeb Page Studies,” Journal of Web Librarianship 1 (2007): 45–64.

4. Bradley P. Tolppanen, Joan Miller, Martha H. Wooden, & Lori M.Tolppanen, “Library World Wide Web sites at Medium-SizedUniversities: A Re-examination,” Internet Reference Services Quar-terly 10 (2005): 7–18.

5. Detlor & Lewis, “Academic Library Web Sites”.6. Nestor L. Osorio, “Web Sites of Science-Engineering Libraries: AnAnalysis of Content and Design,” Issues in Science and TechnologyLibrarianship 29 (Winter 2001), Available: http://www.istl.org/01-winter/refereed.html (accessed March 30, 2010).

7. Christopher Leeder, “Surveying the Commons: Current Implemen-tation of Information CommonsWeb Sites,” The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 35 (November 2009): 533–547.

8. Luigina Vileno, “From Paper to Electronic, the Evolution ofPathfinders: A Review of the Literature,” Reference Services Review35 (2007): 434–451.

9.William Hemmig, “Online Pathfinders: Toward an Experience-Centered Model,” Reference Services Review 33 (2005): 66–87.

10.William J. Jackson, “The User-friendly Library Guide,” College andResearch LibrariesNews45(October, 1984): 468-471; Lorna Peterson& Jamie W. Coniglio, “Readability of Selected Academic LibraryGuides,” RQ 27 (1987): 233-239; Jim M. Kapoun, “Re-thinking theLibrary Pathfinder,” College and Undergraduate Libraries 2 (1995):93-105; Andrew Cox, “Hypermedia Library Guides for AcademicLibraries on the World Wide Web,” Program 30 (1996): 39-50;Candice Dahl, “Electronic Pathfinders in Academic Libraries: AnAnalysis of Their Content and Form,” College and Research Libraries62 (2001): 227-237; Carla A. Dunsmore, “A Qualitative Study ofWeb-Mounted Pathfinders Created by Academic Business Libraries,”Libri 52 (September 2002): 137-156.

11. Luigina Vileno, “From Paper to Electronic”.

March 2011 143

12.Marie P. Canfield, “Library Pathfinders,” Drexel Library Quarterly8 (1972): 287–300.

13.William J. Jackson, “User Education,” Texas Library Journal 60(1984): 58–60.

14. Jim M. Kapoun, “Re-thinking the Library Pathfinder”.15. Glenn J. Thompson & Barbara R. Stevens, “Library Science Students

Develop Pathfinders,” College and Research Libraries News 46 (May1985): 224–225.

16. Carol Kuhlthau, “Information Skills: Tools for Learning,” SchoolLibrary Media Quarterly 16 (Fall 1987): 22–28.

17. Olof Sundin, “Conflicting Approaches to User Information SeekingEducation in Scandinavian Web-based Tutorials,” Proceedings ofthe 68th ASIST 2005 Annual Meeting, 42 (2005): N.A.

18.Hal P. Kirkwood, “Business Library Web Sites: A Review of theOrganization and Structure of Print, Networked, and InternetResources,” Journal of Businesses and Finance Librarianship 5(2000): 23–40.

19. Eileen G. Abels & Trina J. Magi, “Current Practices and Trends in 20Top Business School Libraries,” Journal of Business and FinanceLibrarianship 6 (2001): 3–19.

20. Rebecca Jackson & Lorraine J. Pellack, “Internet Subject Guides inAcademic Libraries: An Analysis of Contents, Practices, andOpinions,” Reference and User Services Quarterly 43 (Summer2004): 319–327.

21. Peter S. Morville & Susan J. Wickhorst, “Building Subject-specificGuides to Internet Resources,” Internet Research 6 (1996): 27–32.

22.Marybeth Grimes & Sara E. Morris, “A Comparison of AcademicLibraries’ Webliographies,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 5(2001): 69–77.

23. Charles Lyons & Hal Kirkwood, “Business Library Web SitesRevisited: An Updated Review of the Organization and Content

144 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

of Academic Business Library Web Sites,” Journal of Business andFinance Librarianship, 14 (2009): 333–347.

24. Candice Dahl, “Electronic Pathfinders,” p. 233.25. Peter S. Morville & Susan J. Wickhorst, “Building Subject-specific

Guides,” p. 31.26. U.S. News and World Report, “Rankngs: Best Business Schools

2009,” U.S. News and World Report, http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/rankings (accessed March 30, 2010).

27.Michael Halperin, Linda Eichler, Delphine Khanna, & KathleenDreyer, “Just the FAQs, Ma'am: Sharing a Business KnowledgeDatabase,” Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 12 (2006):33–40.

28. Charles Lyons and Hal Kirkwood, “Business Library Web Sites,”p. 342.

29. Adriana Trujillo Gonzalez, Vincci Kwong, Julie Strange, & Julie Yen,“A Guide to Excellent Creative Business Libraries and BusinessCenters,” Reference and User Services Quarterly 48 (2009):232–238.

30. Brenda Reeb & Susan Gibbons, “Students, Librarians, and SubjectGuides: Improving a Poor Rate of Return,” Portal: Libraries and theAcademy 4 (2004): 123–130.

31. Charles Lyons and Hal Kirkwood, “Business Library Web Sites,”p. 339.

32. Harold W. Tuckett & Carla J. Stoffle, “Learning Theory and the Self-Reliant Library User,” Reference Quarterly 24 (1984): 58–66.

33. Hanrong Wang & William J. Hubbard, “Integrating ElectronicPathfinders in Digital Libraries: AModel for China,” Lecture Notes inComputer Science, 3334 (2004): 618–625.

34. Peter S. Morville and Susan J. Wickhorst, “Building Subject-specificGuide,” p. 27.