users' perceptions of library effectiveness: a comparative users' evaluation of central...

The International Information & Library Review (2012) 44, 72e85

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ i i l r

Users’ perceptions of library effectiveness:A comparative users’ evaluation of central librariesof AMU, BHU, ALU and BBRAU

Abdul Mannan Khan*

Integral University, Lucknow, India

KEYWORDSUser satisfaction;Libraryinfrastructure;Collectiondevelopment;Online Public AccessCatalogue

* Tel.: þ919411414910.E-mail address: abdulk78612@gma

1057-2317/$ - see front matter ª 201doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2012.04.004

Abstract This study examines user perceptions regarding level of satisfaction with librarycollections, organization, facilities as well as traditional and IT enabled services. A question-naire was administered to the faculty members, research scholars and students of the AligarhMuslim University (AMU), Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Allahabad University (ALU) and BabaBhim Rao Ambedkar (BBRAU). Overall, respondents indicated that library collections areadequate. In the case of newly centralized university libraries, users were dissatisfied withlibrary collections, particularly at BBRAU, though they were satisfied with the existing infra-structure. Overall, satisfaction levels of users at old centralized universities are good.ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

A library can exist without an institution but an institutioncan’t exist without a library. A library is considered as animportant and integral component of any high qualityacademic institution. University libraries are no exceptionto this. Users must have full knowledge about the library tofulfil their needs in order to properly exploit libraryresources. The users’ satisfaction is considered to be reli-able criterion for determining library effectiveness. It helpsthe library to meet its users’ information needs in aneffective way by providing standard and suitable libraryservices needed by them. A user oriented approach has

il.com.

2 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

been found to be more suitable for measuring libraryeffectiveness.

In this paper the perceptive view points of the users,including faculty members, research scholars, and studentsof referred institutions is undertaken for measuring libraryeffectiveness. An attempt is made to bring abouta comparative evaluation of users’ perceptions with regardto libraries effectiveness in terms of collection develop-ment, organization and services. The study has essentiallytaken all the standard parameters of users’ perceptions todetermine the library’s effectiveness.

Review of literature

Users’ assessments can provide invaluable data to librariesin re-orienting their collections, services and activities foreffectively meeting their information needs (Eager &Oppenheim, 1996; Fidzani, 1998). Mannan and Bose (1998)

.

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iilr.2012.04.004

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10572317

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/iilr



Users’ evaluation of central libraries 73

reported a relationship between the level of users’ satis-faction and their library use and assistance sought fromlibrary staff. The study found that a majority of satisfiedlibrary users frequently sought assistance from librariansfor obtaining needed materials. Majid, Anwar, andEisenschitz (2001) investigated those factors thatcontribute positively in shaping users’ perceptions oflibrary effectiveness. A questionnaire-based survey of fivemajor agricultural libraries in Malaysia was conducted. Itwas found that the adequacy of collections, services, andfacilities were closely linked to the perceptions of libraryeffectiveness. Certain other factors contributing positivelyto the perception of library effectiveness were theadequacy and effectiveness of library promotion, involve-ment of users in the selection of library materials, conve-nient library location, participation in user educationprograms, and availability of assistance for using libraryresources and facilities, and subject background of libraryprofessionals. The paper suggests that for any reliablelibrary effectiveness study, all factors associated with usersatisfaction should be investigated together.

Adequacy of collections is one important factor thatdetermines the effectiveness of any library in meeting theinformation needs of its users. In fact, a majority of theinformation services offered by libraries are collection-based. Periodic collection assessment is necessary todetermine to what extent library collections are relevant,current and adequate in meeting the information needs ofusers (Osburn, 1992). Singh (1999a,b) implemented a studyto find the users’ opinions (IIT Kanpur) of the following userneeds: (a) adequacy of the categories of documents; (b)awareness of the services provided by the library; (c) thereservation facility provided by the library; and (d) photo-copying services provided by the library. The importantfindings of the study were that a majority of the users weresatisfied with the library collection and services, but atti-tude of staff is average. However, most found photocopyingservices unsatisfactory. Seth, Ramesh, and Sahu (1999)conducted a study of the current status of library andinformation centres in Orissa in order to study and improvejob anxiety and job satisfaction and their inter-relationships. To study demands for manpower indifferent types of libraries, a survey of 30 different librariesin Bhubaneswar was implemented to assess the humanissues relate to HRM in these libraries. The findings revealthat special libraries are more service oriented thanacademic and public libraries. LIS personnel working insome libraries are highly qualified professionals. Non-professionals are engaged in some libraries like public anddepartmental libraries. A majority of the staff are satisfiedwith the public and departmental libraries and workingconditions. More than 60 percent of the L & ICS have in-house reprographic facilities, and few have access toInternet service. Singh (1999a,b) discussed in her study theacquisition, use, and adequacy of the IIT Bombay librarycollection. She also examined user and librarian awarenessas well as suggestions. Biradar and Kumar (2000) conducteda study on the evaluation of information services andfacilities offered by DVS Polytechnic college library toassess the existing library service and facilities through thequestionnaire method. The study further examined theimpact of professional attributes like nature of work and

sex on the opinions about library services. The findingsindicated that the present system of services offered by thelibrary were inadequate. Chandran (2000, pp. 124e127)discusses the use of Internet resources and services in theS. V. University (Tirupathi) environment. The authorinquired through a questionnaire respondent opinions aboutusing Internet services, their knowledge about thenetworks, sources through which they learn about theInternet, and the avenues through which they access theInternet. The author observed that most of the users werebetween the ages of 20e25 years, and a majority of themwere students of B. Tech and MCA and were aware of VANL,ERNET, e-mail services and access to the Internet at thecomputer centre. Crawford and Daye (2000) conducteda study to describe the use of electronic information flood(EIF) located in Glasgow Caledonian University’s Caledonianlibrary and information center. The survey used bothobservational and questionnaire methods and found thatmost respondents were full time students and PC ratherthan Mac users while only 18 were using the EIF. Overall,Crawford and Daye (2000) concluded that informationsearching is an uncommon activity and that the volume ofnon-curricular activity is substantial but unqualified.

Kaur and Nandan (2000) led a study to determine theimpact of IT on university libraries through a case study ofBhai Gurdas Library, GNDU, and Amritsar. The main objec-tive of the study was to investigate the development of theInternet, Intranet, Extranet, web servers, and multimediathat enable users to access wide variety of resources. Theauthors inferred that the use of new information andcommunication technologies in Bhai Gurdas Library facili-tated the library’s computerization and helped in creatingan in-house database of the collection, generate currentawareness about services such as the databases of booksand periodicals, and to provide e-mail and Internet service.But, complete transformation of this library into an infor-mation centre is yet to be achieved.

Kibrige and De Palo (2000) conducted research on thesources of academic research information, the frequency ofInternet use by end users, to find the most popular searchengine, to gauge the use of online and CD-Rom databases inthe library, and the use of search engines in libraries andinformation centres. The questionnaire method was used tocollect the necessary information. The authors observedthat users prefer search engines to locate topical infor-mation on the Internet. They also suggest the need to re-educate Internet users in several aspects of the informa-tion super highway and online databases available.Monopoli and Nicholas (2000) conducted a case study onuser-centred approaches to the evaluation of subject basedinformation gateways. The study primarily aimed to findout user opinion regarding the use of the SOSIG gatewayinformation system and to determine whether the Internetsuffers from its remoteness. Monopoli and Nicholas (2000)collected data through an online questionnaire madeavailable on the SOSIG website for one month. Overall, theyfound that since SOSIG’s introduction, there was a markedincrease in the number of user requests and that womenseemed to have more difficulties with the Internet thanmen.

Naushad Ali (2000, pp. 78e92) conducted a study on theuse of the Internet and its use at Aligarh Muslim University.

74 A.M. Khan

The author examined user purpose and utilization of theInternet, most popular sites, and sources of informationused as well as problems faced and level of satisfaction ofusers. The questionnaire method was used to collect thedata. Naushad Ali found that most of the users in theuniversity had a tendency to use Internet services regularlybecause of its quick access to relevant information. WorldWide Web and e-mail are the most used Internet servicesand most sought information about new websites. Here,32.22 percent of the users faced slow downloading prob-lems followed by technical (28.81%) and guidance (27.78%)issues. A large number of Internet users were not satisfiedwith infrastructure facilities, but most of them weresatisfied with the timing and location of the computercentre.

Siddiqui (2002) conducted a similar study about the useof the library collection in the Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityLibrary in New Delhi. A total of 303 users were picked atrandom and sent questionnaire through the mail. Out of 303users, 177 people responded. Those surveyed indicatedthat the working hours of the library were adequate. Mostusers (80.4%) said that the reading space of the library wasadequate. Finally, 49.8 percent of users were satisfied withthe library collection. Lohar and Kumbar (2002) examinedthe use of library facilities and information resources inSahyadri Colleges, Shimoga (Karnataka). The study lookedat the adequacy and necessity of information resources forthe colleges by faculty in order to aid the administrator inpreparing enrichment programs for better use of the libraryand to assess the methods of organizing the documents inthe libraries. The researchers found that the majority ofthe respondents in both the colleges, Arts and Commerceand Science College (42.86% and 42.86%), were aware oflibrary classification and consult the library catalogue forcollecting information about documents available in thelibrary (69.05% and 63.27%). The study identified that thereading materials were easy to access for both colleges(54.67% and 63.27%). However, an absence of full financialgrants from the university adversely hampered an avail-ability of subject periodicals and journals. Opinionsregarding infrastructure of the stack room and readingroom were not satisfactory.

Reddy (2002) examined the development of the centrallibrary of REC Warangal under the UKeIndia RegionalEngineering Colleges (REC) project from 1994 to 99. Thestudy aimed to strengthen the libraries in all the eight RECsby sharing the resources amongst them, avoid duplicationof purchases, and promote mutual academic interactionamongst the faculty and students of the different RECs.Through the observation method, Reddy found that thestatus and successful development resulted from traininga high degree of technical skills, intelligence, initiative,efficiency, understanding, team management for improvinglibrary services, strengthening of library procurement ofthe latest and advanced resource material in both print andelectronic forms, resource sharing to avoid duplication ofresources, IT development through the purchase of ITinfrastructure, database creation, housekeeping operationssuch as acquisitions, serial control, OPAC, circulation desk(through barcode technology), multimedia facility, CD-Roms, disks, Internet and e-mail, audiovisual under theUKeIndia RECs Projects as well as the Center of Excellence

at the Regional Engineering College, Warangal. Maharana,Choudhury, and Dutta (2004) studied collection develop-ment of electronic information resources in the R&Dlibraries of Kolkata city. The main objectives of the studyincluded uncovering the current state of the collection,exploring the current practices of collection and collectiondevelopment policies of e-resources, and recommendingpractical guidelines for improved collection developmentprograms. Using the questionnaire method, theseresearchers determined that out of ten libraries, only fourprovided access to OPACs, e-journals, e-databases, a rangeof electronic databases, such as AGRIS, MEDLARS, Socio-logical Abstracts, INIS. Furthermore, six of the libraries(60%) had a policy statement for the development andmanagement of e-resources while eight (80%) did not followa standard practice to preserve their digital resources. Allthe libraries except for NIRIAFT had their own website andseven libraries provided technical training to staff on digitalasset management. Choukhande and Kumar (2004) carriedout a study on the information needs and use patterns offaculty members and research scholars of AmrawatiUniversity. The study assessed the needs and problems ofusers and suggested remedies. Through a combination ofsurvey techniques, questionnaire method, observation andinterviews, the authors found that most users preferreference sources like encyclopedias, periodicals, dictio-naries, etc. Also, users consult electronic sources moreoften than audiovisual materials.

The review of literature demonstrates that despite thevast amount of research on library effectiveness and effi-ciency, there is also an equally considerable collection ofrelevant and appropriate literature pertaining to userassessment of library effectiveness and efficiency. Yet,there is little research on user assessment of libraryeffectiveness and efficiency in Indian libraries.

Objectives of the study

� To examine the purpose of the visit to the library.� To know user opinion with regard to the adequacy oflibrary collections.

� To study and analyze the level of user satisfactionabout library collections, organization, facilities, andservices both traditional and IT enabled services.

� To examine the efficiency and effectiveness of thelibrary in terms of collection development, organiza-tion, and services.

Methods and procedures

To find out user perceptions of collection development,organization, and services, a questionnaire and interview-based survey was designed for data collection from AligarhMuslim University (AMU), Banaras Hindu University (BHU),Allahabad University (ALU) and Baba Bhim Rao Ambedkar(BBRAU). This technique was chosen as it is less timeconsuming and helpful to gather information from scat-tered populations. Several studies on related topics havebeen consulted and their tools and techniques wereexamined. Materials from these instruments and the

Table 1 Purpose of visit to library (usefulness and utility of library).

Purpose of visit to library Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)

AMU BHU ALU BBRAU AMU BHU ALU BBRAU AMU BHU ALU BBRAU

For access/return of documents 13.0 72.73 34.38 50 77.2 80.52 41.03 50 64.9 78.92 44.67 28.57For casual/leisure reading 17.2 35.91 6.25 100 29.3 59.74 29.49 75 19.5 35.24 32.67 40.18For reading the prescribedtext books

1.1 36.82 0.00 0 88.0 61.04 15.38 25 75.9 66.57 59.33 30.36

To prepare for classroominstructions

30.9 30.00 50.00 30 5.4 11.69 2.56 0 1.7 0.00 0.67 37.50

To consult documents forresearch purpose

28.2 95.91 40.63 10 91.3 88.31 57.69 100 0.6 29.52 0.00 28.57

To study for competitiveexaminations

0.0 5.45 0.00 0 58.7 46.75 46.15 25 44.8 84.64 74.67 34.82

Other 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Source: User Survey.


personal knowledge of the researcher were used to developa questionnaire for this study.

Data collected from the questionnaires were organizedin tables for collation and comparison purposes. The tableswere divided by variables such as purpose of visit, satis-faction with the available infrastructure facility such asreading room and outside reading room facilities, cata-logues used, participation in collection building, methodsof participation in collection building, suggestions for theprocurement of materials including the purchase for librarycollection, degree of awareness among users about thevarious services of the library, users of periodicals andjournals, and other miscellaneous services. Based on theseparameters and norms, the researcher endeavoured todetermine the degree of effectiveness and efficiency of thelibraries examined in this study.

Survey analysis and discussion

The purposes of a visit to the library by the differentcategories of respondents are listed in Table 1. A compar-ison of four centralized universities is presented. It is clearthat AMU faculty members occasionally (13%) visit thelibrary for access/return of documents. However, 72.73percent of faculty respondents from BHU visit the libraryfor the same reason. Additionally, 50 percent and 34percent of faculty members of ALU and BBRAU respectivelyvisit the library for access/return of documents. Among thefaculty members from BBRAU, 100 percent visit the libraryfor casual/leisure reading, followed by BHU (35.91%), AMU(17.2%) and ALU (6.25%) respectively. The responses fromfaculty members show that 36.82% of BHU visit the libraryfor reading the prescribed text books followed by AMU(1.1%) while no faculty members from ALU and BBRAUvisited the library for this reason.

In order to prepare for classroom instruction, 50 percentof the respondents from ALU, 30% from BHU and BBRAU,and 30.9% from AMU visited the library. A significantnumber of respondents from BHU, ALU, AMU, and BBRAUvisit the library to consult documents for researchpurposes. This shows that BHU and ALU libraries provide

better documents for research in comparison to the othertwo universities. Furthermore, the researcher learnedduring interviews of faculty members from AMU that theyget better research and teaching materials from theirdepartmental seminar libraries.

The table also provides responses of research scholarsand their purpose for visiting the library. Respondents fromBHU (80.52%) visit the library for access/return of docu-ments, followed by AMU, BBRAU, and ALU respectively. Thiscomparison shows that two old centralized universities areproviding better infrastructural support to their researchscholars. The data further indicates that research scholarsfrom BBRAU are fully dependent on the library to consultdocuments for research purpose whereas 91.3 percent ofresearch scholars at AMU visit the library to consult docu-ments for research purpose followed by BHU and ALU.Perhaps research scholars from AMU, BHU and ALU have analternative source of information for research purposesover BBRAU.

The responses from students pertaining to the purposeof visiting the library are also presented. A majority of thestudents from BHU visit library for access/return of docu-ments followed by AMU (64.9%), ALU (44.67%) and BBRAU(28.57%) respectively. For reading the prescribed textbooks, 75.9 percent of students from AMU followed by BHU(66.57%), ALU (49.33%) and BBRAU (30.36%) respectivelyvisit the library for this purpose. In order to prepare forcompetitive examinations, 84.64 percent of students fromBHU, 74.6 percent from ALU, 44.81 percent from AMU and34.82 percent from BBRAU visit the library.

Table 2 presents comparative statistics relating tosatisfaction with library infrastructure and facilities. It isdiscernible from the table that a majority of facultymembers from AMU and BHU are satisfied with the provisionof separate reading rooms, whereas faculty members of theALU and the BBRAU show their dissatisfaction with libraryinfrastructure and facilities. Provision of reading tables inthe AMU library is the best among all libraries of theuniversities under reference.

Responses from research scholars regarding satisfactionwith library infrastructure and facilities are also provided inthe table. From the data, AMU scholars are considerably

Table 2 Satisfaction with library infrastructure and facilities (degree of library resources and availability of infrastructure).

Satisfaction with libraryinfrastructure and facilities

Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)


Provision of separate readingrooms.

65.6 62.73 15.63 20 78.3 63.64 29.49 25 52.3 40.06 22.67 27.68

Provision of reading tables. 61.5 45.91 21.88 30 68.5 79.22 35.90 25 64.4 64.46 15.33 36.61


76 A.M. Khan

satisfied with the separate reading rooms and their library’sreading tables. BHU also provided separate rooms withadequate reading tables. However, responses fromresearch scholars from ALU and BBRAU reveal that theyperceive inadequate reading rooms and reading tables. It ispossible that a lack of funds for newly centralized univer-sities prevents good library infrastructure and facilities toresearch scholars.

Responses from students with regard to satisfaction withlibrary infrastructure and facilities are also presented inthe table. Most of the respondents from AMU and BHUexpressed satisfaction with the available infrastructure.However, the ALU and BBRAU students are also not satisfiedwith the available infrastructure and facilities in thelibraries.

An overall comparison of the responses shows thatfaculty members, research scholars, and students from theAMU and the BHU are satisfied with the infrastructure andfacilities provided by the libraries. However, the majorityof the respondents from the ALU and the BBRAU indicatedtheir dissatisfaction with library infrastructure andfacilities.

Table 3 presents responses pertaining to satisfactionwith reading room facilities in terms of adequacy of light,overall serenity of atmosphere, opening of reading rooms,and availability of books for on-the-spot reading. In termsof adequacy of lights, BHU faculty members are the mostsatisfied (64.55%) followed by AMU (46.9%), BBRAU (40%),and ALU (37.50%). Responses from BBRAU faculty membersindicate that they are most satisfied (50%) with the overallserenity of atmosphere of their library. In terms of theopening of reading rooms, the majority of faculty membersof AMU (85.1%) are satisfied. However, the satisfaction levelof faculty members of BHU (45.91%), ALU (28.13%), andBBRAU (30%) is low with regard to the opening of readingrooms. Satisfaction in terms of availability of books for on-

Table 3 Satisfaction with reading room facilities (adequacy of

Satisfaction with reading roomfacilities in terms of

Faculty members (Yes %)

AMU BHU ALU BBRAU

Adequacy of lights. 46.9 64.55 37.50 40Overall serenity of atmosphere. 22.5 48.18 18.75 50Opening of reading rooms. 85.1 45.91 28.13 30Availability of books for on-the-spotreading.

15.6 9.55 25.00 40


the-spot reading is minimal among faculty members fromall of the university libraries.

Research scholars from AMU and BHU are satisfied withthe adequacy of lights and overall serenity of atmosphere.Research scholars from AMU are satisfied (78.3%) with theopening of reading rooms whereas only 49.35 percent ofresearch scholars from BHU are satisfied with the openingof reading rooms. BBRAU’s performance in terms ofadequacy of lights, overall serenity of atmosphere, andopening of reading rooms is better than that of ALU.

Furthermore, the table shows responses of studentsregarding satisfaction with reading room facilities. Studentsfrom AMU are satisfied with the reading room facilities forall features, 64.16 percent of students from BHU aresatisfied with adequacy of lights and 59.64 percent aresatisfied with the reading room’s overall serenity of atmo-sphere. Responses of students from ALU and BBRAU showthat, overall, they are not satisfied with their reading roomfacilities in the libraries. From discussions with respon-dents, this data might reflect the reality that reading roomfacilities in old centralized universities are better thanthose in new centralized universities.

Fig. 1 illustrates user satisfaction with reading roomsand facilities in terms of adequacy of lights, serenity ofreading ambiance, opening of reading rooms and theavailability of books for on-the-spot reading. From thefigure, satisfaction with reading room facilities of thecentral university libraries of UP based on the averageestimation is scattered. Results are based on the average ofall three categories of respondents including facultymembers, research scholars, and students. The otherfactors such as, availability of books, serene readingatmosphere are ranked by average for all four universitylibraries.

Table 4 presents responses collected from facultymembers, research scholars and students regarding

infrastructural facilities).

Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)

AMU BHU ALU BBRAU AMU BHU ALU BBRAU

88.0 77.92 17.95 50 77.0 64.16 14.00 57.1458.7 79.22 23.08 50 68.4 59.64 8.00 30.3678.3 49.35 26.92 50 94.3 53.92 15.33 40.1839.1 37.66 5.13 16.667 52.3 35.54 1.33 20.54

Figure 1 Satisfaction with reading room facilities (adequacy of infrastructural facilities). Source: Table 3.


satisfaction with the number of cards and outside readingroom facilities. A majority of faculty members from AMU(81.3%) and BHU (90.45%) are satisfied with the number ofcards issued, number of books issued on each card, and theloan period for documents. However, faculty members fromALU and BBRAU are not satisfied with the number of cardsand outside reading facilities provided by their libraries.The responses from the research scholars regarding thenumber of cards issued show that 77.92 percent of researchscholars from BHU followed by 66.67 percent from BBRAU,58.7 percent from AMU, and 43.59 percent from ALU aresatisfied. Seventy-five percent of research scholars fromBBRAU are satisfied with the number of books issued oneach card followed by BHU (77.92%), AMU (58.7%), and ALU(43.59%) respectively.

The responses of students are also presented in thetable. The majority of students from BHU (62.65%) aresatisfied with the number of cards and outside readingfacilities. The majority of students from AMU (75.90%) andBBRAU (54.46%) are also satisfied with the number of booksissued on each card while only just 29.33 percent ofstudents from ALU indicate they are satisfied. Less than 60percent of students from AMU and BBRAU are satisfied withthe number of cards issued by the library.

Interestingly, faculty members from AMU and BHU aremore satisfied with the number of cards issued and withoutside reading facilities than research scholars andstudents from those universities.

Table 4 Satisfaction with number of cards and outside reading

Services Faculty members (Yes %)

AMU BHU ALU BBRAU

Number of cards issued 81.3 90.45 40.63 40No. of book issued on each card 79.8 91.36 37.50 50Loan period of documents 80.9 83.18 18.75 30


Responses regarding the use of catalogues are presentedin Table 5. Responses from respondents from BHU, ALU andBBRAU show that 100 percent use their library’s cardcatalogue. Responses from faculty members and studentsfrom AMU present the fact that a majority of them use anOnline Public Access Catalogue (OPAC). It should be notedthat during the study, it was found that with exception ofAMU, the other three university libraries do not provide anOPAC for its users.

Fig. 2 illustrates the usage of catalogues of the univer-sity libraries under review. It has been revealed that theuniversities other than AMU do not use an OPAC cataloguesystem. Among the four university libraries, AMU has bothtypes of systems for traditional as well as modern users.Among the AMU respondents, 63 percent are dependent onthe computerized system of cataloguing whereas only 2.97percent use the traditional card catalogues. Although onethird of those surveyed use both of the catalogues whenrequired. OPAC terminals at the other three universities areunder development. The librarians of these three univer-sities have expressed a strong concern about usinga computerized cataloguing. However the shortage ofrequisite funds is a stumbling block that needs to beaddressed as soon as possible.

Table 6 presents user participation in collection devel-opment. A majority of faculty members from AMU (67.9%),BHU (73.18%), and BBRAU (70%) actively participate incollection development whereas there is negligible

facilities (library function efficiency and effectiveness).

Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)


58.7 77.92 43.59 66.667 59.8 62.65 28.67 58.9355.4 62.34 39.74 75 75.9 63.55 29.33 54.4639.1 31.17 26.92 25 43.7 75.90 19.33 20.54

Table 5 User response about the use of catalogues (functional effectiveness).

Categories of catalogue Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)


Card catalogue 1.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 2.2 100.00 100.00 100.00 5.2 100.00 100.00 100.00Online Public AccessCatalogue

96.2 00.00 0.00 0.00 19.6 00.00 0.00 0.00 75.9 00.00 0.00 0.00

Both 2.3 0000 0.00 0.00 78.3 0000 0.00 0.00 17.8 0000 0.00 0.00


78 A.M. Khan

participation by faculty members of ALU (37.5%). Responsesfrom research scholars and students indicate that theirparticipation in collection development is minimal. It ispossible that university authorities rely heavily on theadvice of faculty members in collection development overresearch scholars and students.

Fig. 3 shows the participation of all categories of users incollection building of the central university libraries. Thediagram is based on the averages of tabulated figures fromTable 6. In the case of newly centralized universities, ALUand BBRAU, there is less participation in collection buildingthan by AMU and BHU.

Responses from faculty members, research scholars, andstudents towards the method of participation in collectiondevelopment are presented in Table 7. A majority of AMUfaculty members participate in collection development byidentifying weaknesses of the collection of a particularsubject. Furthermore, 43.5 percent of AMU faculty membersparticipate in collection development through formalrequisition and suggestions. Comparatively, responses fromBHU faculty members present more balanced participationin collection development. More than half of facultymembers from ALU (56.2%) participate in collection devel-opment through formal requisition and suggestions followedby 43.75 percent by identifying weaknesses of the collec-tions of a particular subject and 18.75 percent participate assubject specialists. Only 6.25 percent of faculty membersfrom ALU, 34.55 percent from BHU, and 10.7 percent from

Figure 2 User response about the use of catalog

AMU participate in collection development as a member ofa document selection committee. Responses from researchscholars and students show a negligible participation incollection development by them.

Fig. 4 regards the methods of participation in collectionbuilding. The majority of users in all of the categoriessuggest the need for new subscriptions and the need forparticipation through oral and written communication.Other than these three methods of participation, thefaculty members participate by providing subject expertisein their concerned fields and ranks as the third method ofcollection development.

Respondents from BBRAU do not point out the weak-nesses nor does there appear to be student representationon the selection committee. It is evident that in case ofAMU, all four methods are largely utilized by the differentusers when appropriate.

Responses collected from faculty members, researchscholars, and students regarding frequency of sugges-tions for the procurement of materials are presented inTable 8. It is found that 50.4 percent of AMU facultymembers occasionally make suggestions for procurementof materials for the library whereas 30.2 percentfrequently make suggestions for procurement of mate-rials. At BHU, 36.82 percent of faculty membersfrequently make suggestions whereas only 6.25 percentfaculty members from ALU and 20 percent from BBRAUalso make frequent suggestions.

ue (functional effectiveness). Source: Table 5.

Table 6 User participation in collection building.

Participation inbuilding collection

Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)


Yes 67.9 73.18 37.50 70 39.1 28.57 5.13 25.00 12.1 6.33 6.00 0.00No 8.8 25.45 34.38 30 58.7 66.23 52.56 66.67 77.0 68.37 28.00 0.00No response 23.3 1.36 28.13 0 2.2 5.19 42.31 8.33 10.9 25.30 66.00 100.00



Responses from research scholars and students did notdemonstrate any particular trend of frequency at whichthey make suggestions for procurement of materials for thelibrary. It’s possible that the librarians do not encouragenor entertain suggestions for procurement of materialsfrom research scholars and students because of lack of trustby university library authorities in the ability of researchscholars and students to offer suggestions. Or, perhaps,research scholars and the students are hesitant to givesuggestions due to a lack of awareness.

Fig. 5 presents the frequency respondents offersuggestions for collection development based on the aver-ages. From Fig. 5, one fourth of BHU and AMU usersfrequently give suggestions for procurement of materials inthe library and actively participate in these activities also.Notably, almost the same amount of users never gives anysuggestions either. Most of the users from the four univer-sity libraries occasionally offer suggestions for procurementof materials in collection building. It is also noticeable that40 percent of the users in newly centralized universitiesand one fourth of the centralized universities seldom givesuggestions in the collection development activities of thelibraries.

Table 9 presents library responses towards user sugges-tions for procuring reading materials. From the survey, 61.5

Figure 3 Participation in collect

percent of AMU faculty members believed the libraryresponse was positive to their suggestions for procuringreading materials. Also, 67.73 percent of BHU facultymembers responded that library authorities took theirsuggestions for procuring reading materials positively. Inthe case of ALU, the faculty members opined that libraryattitude is negative in considering their suggestions. While40 percent of faculty members of BBRAU suggested that thelibrary authorities are fair in considering their suggestionsfor procuring reading materials. Responses of researchscholars from AMU and BHU indicated a mixed opinion. Halfof the research scholars from AMU feel that the library isfair towards their suggestions. Responses from BHUresearch scholars (40.26%) suggest that their library ispositive to their recommendations of reading materials. Inthe case of ALU and BBRAU, a majority of respondentsconsented that library response towards uses suggestionsfor procuring reading materials is negative.

Responses from AMU students reveal that the majoritybelieves library response is positive and fair. In the case ofBHU, ALU, and BBRAU, a majority of students said libraryresponse towards user suggestions for procuring readingmaterials is negative. In the case of old central universities(except BHU for students), suggestions from the users arewelcomed by library authorities whereas newly centralized

ion building. Source: Table 6.

Table 7 Method of participation in collection building (figure in parenthesis is percentage).

Method of participation Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)


Member of document selectioncommittee

10.7 34.55 6.25 e 0.00 0.00 0.00 e 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00

Subject specialist when askedto render help in documentselection

34.0 55.00 18.75 40 5.43 24.68 3.85 e 1.15 2.71 0.00 0.00

Through formal requisition andsuggestion

43.5 45.91 56.25 40 28.6 10.39 30.77 e 27.9 2.41 1.33 38.39

Identifying weaknesses of thecollection of a particular subject

75.2 33.18 43.75 e 45.0 38.96 20.51 e 43.3 3.92 2.67 e

Other methods 0.0 0.00 0.00 e 0.00 0.00 e 0.0 0.00 e


80 A.M. Khan

libraries are not as receptive. Furthermore, there’s a lackof awareness among staff and users about the variousfunctional areas of collection development at newlycentralized universities.

Fig. 6 illustrates the response levels of librarians tosuggestions by users in all categories. The figure shows that60 to 70 percent of users in the newly centralized univer-sities are negative towards suggestions. Similarly, 40percent of BHU users and 25 percent of AMU users say thereis a negative response from librarians. However, 40 percentof users of old centralized universities received a positiveresponse and the same is true for 20 percent on average innewly centralized universities with regard to the librarians’responses towards user suggestions for the procurement ofmaterials for collection development.

Table 10 presents responses towards user awareness ofvarious library services. A majority of respondents amongthe faculty members, research scholars, and students of allfour universities are aware of lending/circulation servicesexcept for BBRAU students. Though a majority of BBRAUfaculty members and research scholars are aware of theirlibrary’s inter library loan, reference, and bibliographical

Figure 4 Method of participation in c

services. However, among students, there is a lack ofawareness of inter library loan. More than half of AMU(69.5%) and BHU (67.17%) students know about theirlibrary’s reference services. Whereas, responses from ALUand BBRAU students show that few students are aware ofreference services at those schools. A large percentage offaculty members and research scholars at AMU and BHUhave knowledge of CAS. The responses also show thata handful of faculty members and research scholars of ALUand BBRAU are aware of CAS. The majority of students fromall four central universities are not aware of CAS. In thecase of Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI),a majority of respondents from all four universities do notknow about this service. Responses regarding the repro-graphic services reveal that the majority of respondents arewell aware of this service. More than half of ALU (59.38%)faculty members and 50 percent of BBRAU faculty membersare aware of the translation services offered. Among otherrespondents, 66.3 percent of AMU research scholars haveknowledge of translation services. Other responses pre-sented in the table indicate that the majority of respon-dents are aware of their library’s online services. In the

ollection building. Source: Table 7.

Table 8 Frequency of suggestions for procurement of materials (figure in parenthesis is percentage).

Frequency which you make suggestionsfor procurement of materials for thelibrary

Faculty members (Yes%) Research scholar (Yes%) Students (Yes%)


Frequently 30.2 36.82 6.25 20 29.3 16.88 1.28 25.00 19.5 14.46 0.67 1.79Rarely 16.4 18.64 28.13 40 2.2 25.97 50.00 25.00 44.8 42.47 38.00 54.46Occasionally 50.4 17.73 43.75 30 39.1 9.09 28.21 41.67 12.6 23.80 3.33 18.75Never 3.1 26.82 21.88 10 29.3 44.16 20.51 8.33 23.0 19.28 58.00 25.00


Figure 5 Frequency of suggestions for procurement ofmaterials. Source: Table 8.

Figure 6 Library response towards user suggestions for


case of indexing/abstracting, faculty members of BHU andBBRAU are more aware of their library’s services than AMUand ALU faculty members. Whereas, AMU, BHU, and BBRAUresearch scholars are more aware of indexing/abstractingservices than research scholars of ALU. Awareness amongstudents with regard to indexing/abstracting services isnegligible.

Fig. 7 shows user awareness of services provided byuniversity libraries. It is identified from the figure thatservices such as lending and circulation, inter library loan,bibliographical, online services, reference, and repro-graphic are the most familiar to most of the users surveyed.

Table 9 Library response towards user suggestions for procurem

Response of library towards usersuggestions for procuring readingmaterials

Faculty members (Yes%)

AMU BHU ALU BBRAU

Positive 61.5 67.73 34.38 30Negative 11.1 25.00 56.25 30Fair 27.5 7.27 9.38 40


But, services such as CAS and SDI are not well known byusers, especially those at newly centralized universities.Among the services the library, respondents from BHU weremore aware of their library’s services than those surveyedfrom AMU, ALU, and BBRAU on average. Services such astranslation, indexing and abstracting received mixedresponses from all respondents with almost 40 percent ofusers from BHU and BBRAU aware of indexing services

ent of reading materials.

Research scholars (Yes%) Students (Yes%)


26.1 40.26 16.67 8.33 30.5 21.39 15.33 19.6423.9 36.36 78.21 75.00 38.5 64.16 79.33 73.2150.0 23.38 5.13 16.67 31.0 14.46 5.33 7.14

procurement of reading materials. Source: Table 9.

Table 10 User awareness of various library services.

Awareness of services Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (yes %) Students (Yes %)


Lending circulation services 88.2 93.18 90.63 100 84.8 85.71 82.05 75 73.6 74.70 74.67 29.46Inter library loan 80.5 90.45 53.13 80 78.3 84.42 50.00 50 35.1 33.73 24.67 10.71Reference services 81.3 95.91 43.75 70 72.8 75.32 53.85 58.333 69.5 67.17 28.67 11.61Bibliographical services 81.7 92.73 40.63 80 71.7 70.13 52.56 66.667 41.4 45.78 17.33 18.75CAS 67.9 93.18 6.25 10 67.4 66.23 29.49 16.667 23.6 37.05 0.00 0.00SDI 3.4 2.73 3.13 10 33.7 36.36 2.56 8.3333 0.6 0.00 0.00 0.00Reprographic services 100.0 96.36 100.00 90 91.3 87.01 91.03 83.333 96.6 96.69 100.00 68.75Translation services 23.3 9.09 59.38 50 66.3 24.68 26.92 16.667 0.6 0.60 12.67 5.36Online services 100.0 99.55 100.00 100 88.0 93.51 88.46 91.667 92.5 96.99 96.00 78.57Indexing and abstractingservices

10.3 70.45 12.50 60 52.2 42.86 26.92 50 10.3 11.14 19.33 3.57


82 A.M. Khan

whereas only 20 to 25 percent of users in the other twolibraries were aware of such services. It would seem fromthe responses that the newly centralized universities stilllack the service orientation whereas AMU and BHU offerrelatively better service awareness to their users from allcategories.

Table 11 presents responses pertaining to use of peri-odicals. The data show that 46.9 percent of AMU facultymembers use current periodicals whereas 67.9 percent useback volumes of periodicals, and just 26.7 percent useindexing/abstracting periodicals. In the case of BHU, themajority of faculty members uses current periodicals aswell as back volumes of periodicals. Only 10.45 percentfaculty members utilize indexing/abstracting periodicals.Responses from faculty members from ALU show that 37.5percent and 40.63 percent use current periodicals and backvolumes of periodicals respectively. Respondents from

Figure 7 User awareness of various

BBRAU failed to provide responses regarding use ofperiodicals.

Students, however, are not frequent users of currentperiodicals, back volume periodicals, and indexing/abstracting periodicals. The researcher observed that dueto a lack of funds and high cost of reputed periodicals,newly centralized universities are not able to procure thebest quality of periodicals including national and interna-tional titles.

User response regarding the provision of different types ofreference services provided by library is shown in Table 12.An analysis of responses among the faculty members andresearch scholars show that AMU and BHU are better than ALUin helping search for documents, using reference sources,using bibliographical sources, and searching for specificinformation. The respondents of all categories from BBRAUfailed to provide a response. Among the students’ overall

library services. Source: Table 10.

Table 11 Use of periodicals.

Periodicals used Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)


Current periodicals 46.9 72.73 37.50 e 53.3 59.74 29.49 e 12.1 12.35 1.33 e

Back volumes of periodicals 67.9 70.45 40.63 e 44.6 42.86 48.72 e 17.8 6.93 5.33 e

Indexing/abstracting periodicals 26.7 10.45 3.13 e 30.4 31.17 2.56 e 0.0 3.31 0.67 e


Table 12 User response about provision of different types of reference services (service adequacy and efficiency).

Types of services Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)


Help searching for documents 88.2 40.45 6.25 e 39.1 66.23 11.54 e 51.1 35.24 22.67 e

Help using reference sources 80.9 35.91 12.50 e 58.7 58.44 5.13 e 18.4 26.81 14.00 e

Help using bibliographical sources 58.8 25.45 9.38 e 48.9 32.47 7.69 e 12.1 33.73 14.00 e

Help searching specific information 43.5 45.00 3.13 e 58.7 40.26 10.26 e 6.3 23.19 8.67 e



perception, BHU students rated services offered by theirlibrary more favourably than is better than AMU and ALU. Theresearcher observed that newly centralized universities arenot helping users due to a lack of adequately trained staff.Furthermore, the unavailability of a reference desk and theshortage of staff in the newly centralized university librarieslimit these types of services.

Fig. 8 illustrates the certain types of reference servicesoffered by the central university libraries in this study.Users from AMU, BHU, and ALU are satisfied with the help insearch of documents provided by their library staff. Thehelp provided by the staff on reference sources, specific

Figure 8 User response about provision of different types of refere

information, and bibliographical sources are also satisfac-tory in case of these universities.

Table 13 presents user response about the differenttypes of services used at the library. The faculty membersof AMU mostly use their library for Xeroxing, Internetaccess, online databases/journals, and CAS. A majority ofBHU faculty members use two services, photocopying andonline databases/journals while they rarely use theirlibrary for Internet access. Comparisons of the threeuniversities’ faculty responses show that the majority usesthe library for photocopying, Internet access, and onlinedatabases/journals. The data for BBRAU are not available.

nce services (service adequacy andefficiency). Source: Table 12.

Table 13 Use of different types of services (service effectiveness and efficiency).

Types of services Faculty members (Yes %) Research scholars (Yes %) Students (Yes %)


Bibliographical services 30.15 31.36 9.38 e 77.17 28.57 16.67 e 33.91 42.47 2.67 e

Photocopying 53.82 75.45 65.63 e 98.91 79.22 70.51 e 95.98 97.29 74.67 e

Microfilm 11.07 e 0.00 e 10.87 e 0.00 e 6.90 e 0.00 e

SDI 0.00 e 0.00 e 2.17 e 0.00 e 0.00 e 0.00 e

Internet access 43.13 25.45 68.75 e 84.78 62.34 29.49 e 0.00 37.05 0.67 e

Online databases/journals 80.53 80.91 65.63 e 96.74 66.23 26.92 e 0.00 30.42 2.00 e

CAS 75.57 33.18 15.63 e 51.09 40.26 24.36 e 65.52 8.13 0.00 e

CD-ROM 0.00 20.00 0.00 e 0.00 50.65 0.00 e 0.00 3.31 0.00 e


Figure 9 Use of different types of services (service effec-tiveness and efficiency). Source: Table 13.

84 A.M. Khan

Responses of research scholars from AMU, BHU, and ALUshow that the majority of them use the library primarily forphotocopying, Internet access, and online databases/jour-nals. The majority of students from three of the universitiesuse their library for photocopying services. Only in the caseof AMU, 65.52 percent of students use the library for CAS.

The researcher observed that BBRAU does not provideservices other than the circulation of documents, therefore,they could not respond to questions regarding other types ofservices. It is clear that photocopying services are the mostpopular among all categories of respondents. Internet accessand online databases/journals are the othermost frequentlyused services by faculty members and research scholars.However, students are not allowed to use online databaseand Internet services within the library premises.

Fig. 9 portrays the degree of usage of services byrespondents. It is indicative from the figure that photo-copying services are mainly used by users except forBBRAU. Online and Internet access services ranked secondand third. CD-Rom services are not being used in anyuniversity other than BHU whereas microfilm was used onlyat AMU by a few users, mainly faculty members.

Conclusions, findings, suggestions, andrecommendations

Early studies suggest that several factors need to be studiedto measure library effectiveness. The present study

investigated different users’ perceptions of library effec-tiveness with regard to a wide range of factors such asresources, services, and activities. It was found thatlibraries with adequate infrastructure facilities andadequate collections were considered more effective.Libraries involving respondents in collection developmentreceived a better assessment for effectively meeting theinformation needs of their users. A link was also foundbetween perception of library effectiveness and availabilityof materials, assistance sought in using library services andfacilities. Those respondents who visited the library forresearch purposes and classroom instructions gave slightlybetter assessments of their library.

On the whole, it is clear that the newly centralizeduniversity libraries, ALU & BBRAU, are attempting tostrengthen infrastructure and facilities as indicated by allcategories of respondents. The newly centralized univer-sities as well as BHU do not have an OPAC as had beenreported by the respondents of these universities. AMU wasfound to be using both types of catalogues. Significantparticipation by faculty members and research scholars incollection development was found for all universities.However, at the newly centralized university libraryBBRAU, student participation is non-existent. So far, assuggestions by users for procuring reading materials areconcerned, it was seen that almost all the respondentshave made suggestions for the purpose. The degree ofawareness among users about varied kinds of libraryservices was found to be satisfactory except for studentrespondents from BBRAU. However, BBRAU studentsexpressed satisfaction with reprographic and onlineservices. The degree of use of periodicals by users wasagain satisfactory for AMU and BHU users.

Overall, though user response was not always satisfac-tory, library effectiveness in the four central universitiesare adequate enough based on levels of user satisfaction.The reason for this dichotomy may be that the users of theuniversities studied did not rate their existing services byfixed standards that make them aware of other aspects ofefficiency and effectiveness.

Overall, the primary users of library are the researchscholars. The newly centralized universities are not able toaccommodate every research scholar’s wishes for allservices, which may account for the satisfactory responsesby those post graduate fellows. Also, both the newly


centralized institutions, ALU and BBRAU, should have thefinancial and infrastructural support of the government.

References

Biradar, B. S., & Kumar, S. B. T. (2000). Evaluation of informationservices and facilities offered by D. V. S. Polytechnic CollegeLibrary: a case study. Library Herald, 38(2), 112e130.

Chandran, D. (2000). Use of Internet resources and services in S. V.University (Tirupathi) environment. CALIBRE.

Choukhande, V. G., & Kumar, P. S. G. (2004). Analytical study ofinformationneedsandusepatternof facultymembersand researchscholars of Amrawati University. ILA Bulletin, 40(3), 23e31.

Crawford, J. C., & Daye, A. (2000). A survey of the use of electronicservices at Glasgow Caledonian University Library. The Elec-tronic Library, 18(1), 255e265.

Eager, C., & Oppenheim, C. (1996). An observational method forundertaking user needs studies. Journal of Librarianship andInformation Science, 28(1), 15e22.

Fidzani, B. T. (1998). Information needs and information seekingbehaviour of graduate students at the University of Botswana.Library Review, 47(7), 329e340.

Kaur, A., & Nandan, N. (2000). Impact of IT on university libraries:a case study on Bhai Gurdas Library, GNDU, Amritsar. LibraryHerald, 38(1), 43e52.

Kibirige, H. M., & De Palo, L. (2000). The Internet as a source ofacademic research information: findings of two pilot studies.Information Technologies and Libraries, 19(1).

Lohar, M. S., & Kumbar, M. (2002). Use of library facilities andinformation resources in resources in Sahyadri College, Shimoga(Karnataka): a study. Annals of Library and InformationStudies, 49(3), 73e87.

Maharana, B., Choudhury, B. K., & Dutta, S. (2004). Collectiondevelopment of electronic information resources in the R&Dlibraries of KolkataCity: a survey. LibraryHerald, 42(3), 235e246.

Majid, S., Anwar, M. A., & Eisenschitz, T. S. (2001). User percep-tions of library effectiveness in Malaysian agricultural libraries.Library Review, 50(4), 176e186.

Mannan, S. M., & Bose, M. L. (1998). Resource sharing and infor-mation networking of libraries in Bangladesh: a study on usersatisfaction. Malaysian Journal of Library & InformationScience, 3(2), 67e86.

Monopoli, M., & Nicholas, D. (2000). A user centered approach tothe evaluation of subject based information gateways: a casestudy of SOSIG. Aslib Proceedings, 52(6), 11e16.

Naushad, A. P. M. (2000). Internet and its use in Aligarh MuslimUniversity: A survey. CALIBRE.

Osburn, C. B. (1992). Collection evaluation and acquisitionsbudgets: a kaleidoscope in the making. Journal of LibraryAdministration, 17(2), 3e11.

Reddy, R. S. (2002). Development of central library at REC War-angal under UKeIndia RECs project 1994e1999: a case study.IASLIC Bulletin, 47(2), 77e95.

Seth, M. K., Ramesh, D. B., & Sahu, J. R. (1999). Libraries andinformation centers in Orissa: a case study on issues andstrategies. ILA Bulletin, 35(1e2), 6e9.

Siddiqui, A. F. (2002). Use of library collection in the JawaharlalNehru University Library. IASLIC Bulletin, 47(3), 149e161.

Singh, S. P. (1999a). An evaluation of collection development andreader’s services at IIT library, Bombay. DESIDOC Bulletin ofInformation Technology, 17(4e5), 11e25.

Singh, S. P. (1999b). IIT library (Kanpur): users assessment ofcollection and reader services. Annals of Library Science andDocumentation, 46(4).

Dr. Abdul Mannan Khan is currentlyworking as library in charge and coursecoordinator, integral university, Lucknow;He has published more than twenty articlesAND RESEARCH PAPERS in different journalsand conference proceedings. Dr. Khan hasreceived B.L.I.Sc., M.L.I.Sc. and PhDdegrees from Aligarh Muslim University,Aligarh. He secured positions in both cour-ses and awarded “P.N. Kaula-BasheeruddinMedal”.

users' perceptions of library effectiveness: a comparative users' evaluation of central...

Documents