Research Article
Identifying and Classifying
User Typologies Within a United Kingdom Hospital Library Setting: A Case Study
Lynn Easton
Library Manager (South)
NHS Greater Glasgow and
Email: lynn.easton2@ggc.scot.nhs.uk
Scott Adam
Assistant Librarian
NHS Greater Glasgow and
Trish Durnan
Senior Library Assistant
NHS Greater Glasgow and
Maria Henderson Library,
Email: trish.durnan@ggc.scot.nhs.uk
Lorraine McLeod
Assistant Librarian
NHS Greater Glasgow and
Beatson West of
Email: lorraine.mcleod@ggc.scot.nhs.uk
Received: 18 Dec. 2015 Accepted:
22 Oct. 2016
2016 Easton, Adam, Durnan, and
McLeod.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To
identify available health library user typology classifications and, if none
were suitable, to create our own classification system. This is to inform effective future library
user engagement and service development due to changes in working styles,
information sources and technology.
Methods – No
relevant existing user typology classification systems were identified;
therefore, we were required to create our own typology classification
system. The team used mixed methods
research, which included literature analysis, mass observation, visualization
tools, and anthropological research. In this
case study, we mapped data across eleven library sites within NHS Greater
Glasgow and Clyde Library Network, a United Kingdom (U.K.) hospital library
service.
Results –
The findings from each of the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Library Network’s
eleven library sites resulted in six user typology categories: e-Ninjas, Social
Scholars, Peace Seekers, Classic Clickers, Page Turners and Knowledge Tappers.
Each physical library site has
different profiles for each user typology.
The predominant typology across the whole service is the e-Ninjas (28%)
with typology characteristics of being technically shrewd, IT literate and
agile – using the library space as a touch down base for learning and working.
Conclusions – We
identified six distinct user types who utilize hospital library services with
distinct attributes based on different combinations of library activity and
medium of information exchange. The
typologies are used to identify the proportional share and specific
requirements, within the library, of each user type to provide tailored
services and resources to meet their different needs.
Introduction
Several
factors contribute to different types of users accessing hospital library
services. Whilst some users continue to
utilize the library for what could be considered traditional reasons (book
borrowing and book based studying) changing work patterns and space
restrictions mean that U.K. hospital libraries are also being used for
non-traditional purposes (work, online study and leisure). In addition, different learning styles and
technological competencies mean that library users now prefer to access
information through a variety of media such as smart devices.
Health
and hospital libraries are unique within the library sector with a very
time-limited user base due to clinical demands.
The users are primarily busy clinicians and nurses who have patient care
responsibilities, who demand instant access to information and who have no
available workstations within their workplace (Thomas & Preston, 2016) A large proportion of our users can be
students or student doctors who appear to be using mobile technologies on the
wards (Chamberlain, Elcock & Puligari, 2015). To satisfy the demands of
these different users and engage with their current and future service needs, a
short-life working party was set up within the National Health Service Greater
Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) Library Network.
Service provision within NHSGGC libraries has been based on assumptions
that professional role predicts style of library use e.g. busy nurses would
focus on paper textbooks rather than electronic resources, with no further
investigation to corroborate these assumptions.
However, more recent day-to-day anecdotal observations led us to suspect
that this was no longer the case and that library use is based on
characteristics other than professional role.
We
chose to investigate if any relevant user typology classification scheme already
existed that could be used, or adapted, by hospital libraries to identify the
distinct differing classes of user that we encounter. The definition of typology namely
“classification of human behaviour characteristics according to type”
(“Typology”, 2007) was used to focus our project.
From
the literature review, we identified that there are no existing typologies that
match our particular needs to classify our users. Existing typologies originating from other
sectors did not apply to our unique status as a provider of library services to
busy clinicians, nurses, students and student doctors. As a result of identifying this gap within
the research literature, we created a unique user typology classification scheme
specifically for NHSGGC hospital libraries, but that could be used by other
health and hospital libraries. We used mixed methods research to uncover
relevant typologies and explored methods of visualizing our results.
Literature
Review
To
gain a better understanding and knowledge of NHSGGC library users we undertook
a literature analysis, based on themes, to identify the literature. Within the thematic literature analysis we
looked for information on the following themes: changing library space and
environments, what typologies have been used before, physical typologies,
virtual or online typologies, health library specific typologies, methods of
identifying the typologies and recommendations for use from these typologies. The literature review identified that library
environments are changing and that one way to identify our users’ current
requirements is to place our users into a classification scheme. Following the analysis of the literature, we
excluded out-of-hours, virtual and non-users from our project as out of scope.
We
searched the following sources: EMBASE, Emerald, Health Management Online,
HMIC, LISTA, MEDLINE and PsycINFO, and online library catalogues: OLIB and
Shelcat for English language literature published since 2008. The major search terms included the
following: library*, knowledge, information, typolog*, behavio*, characterist*
and millennial* (Appendix One). We
kept up to date with any literature found during our project and added it into
our knowledge base.
Changing
Library Environments
Analyzing
the changing library environment is identified as a theme by Holder and Lange
(2014), Talvé (2011) and Todd (2009).
Holder and Lange (2014) state how they used mixed methods to identify
space use and user satisfaction in Canada.
They used observation, as a technique, eleven times and showed
individual versus group study preferences and how this fed into service
development within the library physical environment.
Talvé
(2011) plots the changing use of libraries across the decades and identifies
the future of the library environment in Australia. She identifies that “the more virtual we
become, the more we seek tactile, earthy, soft nesting spaces”. She notes that “people like to be with other
people in neutral spaces” and the library has a physical role in this. She goes on to suggest that libraries are
“places for collaboration” where library users gather together to solve issues
creatively.
Also
in Australia Todd (2009) identifies that different library areas suit different
types, for example “introverts” may prefer seating that faces into the wall and
“extroverts” may prefer wide open comfortable seating. She made use of surveys and observations and
discovered discrepancies between what students planned to do and what they
actually did. For example, 32% of
students planned to work on individual assignments, but under observation only
25% were observed doing this. This study
identified that using observation and surveys improved library
performance. The use of typologies in
this article led us to acknowledge that we required to audit our own users to
identify their use for library service development.
Libraries
are evolving, matching user learning styles to physical and virtual library
space. Our study acknowledged that we
needed a tool to measure the classification of library users within a U.K.
hospital library environment to inform suitable changes to the library
environment to match our users’ working styles, medium of exchange and
activities.
Library
Typologies
Several
general non-library specific typologies were identified by Greene and Myerson
(2011), who noted that the world is changing to become more focused on the
economy of knowledge. These typologies
were identified via ethnographic study, interview and visual tools around how
people used their office space. This
London study suggested several typology classifications including anchors and
connectors. Greene and Myerson noted
generational typologies such as Generation X, Millennials and Baby Boomers. These typologies have a 20-year age span
therefore we discounted these typologies as too broad for the purpose of our
study, e.g. Baby Boomers will be retired or nearing retirement.
Library
specific typologies were identified by Bilandzic and Foth (2013) and Zickuhr,
Purcell and Rainie (2014). Within a
wide-ranging study of American public libraries, Zickuhr et al. (2014)
identified typologies including “library lovers” and “distant admirers”. Bilandzic and Foth (2013) analyzed library
use within a learning context in Australia; using ethnographic techniques
several typologies were identified e.g. “learning freak Fred” and “what can I
do here Sophia”. These typologies are
close to what we were looking to identify within the NHSGGC library hospital context,
but were rejected early on because the library context within this paper did
not fit our own research context as it is from a “digital cultural centre”
context. Our literature review did not
identify any health library specific typologies.
We
therefore discarded the use of existing library typologies within our research
topic. The use of existing typologies
would have been time saving and would have created comparable results to study
within published papers. In reality we
did not feel that the typologies presented to us within the literature could be
transferred to the one situation with NHSGGC hospital libraries because our
study is aimed at classifying users within the physical use of space only, and
in a professional NHS health service hospital setting. We expected our small data sample size would
not cover more than two generations.
This meant that we rejected the use of known typologies due to the
differences in scale and limited transferability of results from our U.K.
hospital setting compared to the large-scale users and resources of public
library or higher education library settings.
Virtual
and Online Typologies
Virtual
or online typologies were identified by Lawrence and Weber (2012), Brandtzaeg
and Heim (2011) and Nicholas, Rowlands, Clark and Williams (2011). In a study in the United States of America,
Lawrence and Weber (2012), observed higher education students late at night -
and generated amusement from students about the “diligence” of the librarians
observing them out of hours. However,
this is in a higher education setting which would result in high footfall, particularly
at exam times, and would not be comparable to the NHS Greater and Glasgow out
of hours setting. Within NHSGGC
libraries there is out of hours use, particularly for on-call staff, rather
than students. This study also
concentrated more on use of the library and activities rather than typologies.
Brandtzaeg
and Heim (2011) from Norway identified online social networking typologies such
as “sporadics” and “lurkers” using an online questionnaire, whilst Nicholas et
al. (2011) identified web information seeking behaviour in the United Kingdom. They classified the behaviours into various
animal typologies such as “web hedgehog” and “web ostrich”.
Due
to the relatively low numbers of out of hours library users within the NHSGGC
context and the challenges of identifying virtual typologies, the typologies
identified in these papers were rejected as methods for our research. There is a noted potential to study these at
a future date if resources such as new technologies e.g. tracking via mobile
apps became cheaper and more widely available.
Typology
Methodologies
Typology
methodologies are discussed by Urquhart (2015), Kline (2013), Gajendragadkar et
al. (2013) and Lawrence and Weber (2012).
Observation can be a very useful research tool and Urquhart (2015) noted
that as yet “little research discussed observation as a major part of the
research methodology”, whilst suggesting that it can be a time and labour
intensive process. She notes that modern
digital tools such as “phones and digital recorders” make observation a
relatively easier method to use than in the past.
Kline
(2013) interviewed David Green from the ERIAL (Ethnographic Research in
Illinois Academic Libraries) project (ERIAL, 2015), and he confirms that even a
relatively tiny study can identify a lot about your library users. The negative side of this is that it can take
a great deal of staff time to run such a study.
He also identifies that using ethnography puts librarians into
the “users’ world” thus motivating change, and this matched the service
improvement goals of our project.
Gajendragadkar
et al. (2013) undertook a covert observational study in an NHS hospital setting
proving that such ethnographic techniques could be used within an NHS
setting. Similarly, Lawrence and Weber
(2012) noted that their research took in a variety of styles “written surveys,
interviews, observation, mapping and statistics” and this encouraged us to
proceed with mixed methods research within our own project.
Online
tools such as blogs and social media (#UKAnthrolib, 2014 and Lanclos, 2015) are
used to identify anthropological and ethnographic methods within library
settings and these tools informed our small-scale project.
Ethnography
has historically been linked to both anthropology and sociology. Reeves, Peller, Goldman and Kitto (2013) in
their paper on ethnography, within educational research, state that “the
ethnographer goes into the field to study a cultural group”. They also go on to note that small groups
have been studied and documented since the early twentieth century. Our study aimed to identify a small group,
namely U.K. hospital library users, and this fits in with the ethnographic
methodology.
Brewer
(2000) states “ethnography is not one particular method of data collection but
a style of research” and its ability to mix and match research methods such as
observation, personal diaries and interviews gives credence to the fact that
ethnography has become an evolving and increasingly used tool within libraries
within the last ten years as can be seen from the popularity of the UX (user
experience) in Libraries concept (UXLIBS, 2016).
Typologies
Use in Practice
The
literature also identified recommendations for how typology classifications
could be used. Bilandzic and Foth (2013)
suggest that new mobile device technologies allow a more fluid and non-owned
space. This resonated with our project
as this matches the increased number of agile workers using library space
within NHSGGC. Their research is not
directly replicable with our users as the observation took place over five
months within a large library and we were unable to devote similar timescales
to our project.
Difficulties
in finding out what non-users think and do in the library were identified in
the United Kingdom by Booth (2008). He
categorised people into typologies such as “non-seekers” or “confident
collectors”. He described how typologies
can help influence the design for library space around the various different
wants and demands of users. This
specifically fits in with the demands and requirements for service improvements
due to changes of working styles, technologies and information resources within
NHSGGC. We rejected this typology
because the research is not set in a U.K. hospital library setting.
We
identified that NHSGGC libraries have been evolving with the change of use both
traditionally and technologically and from solitary to group learning to
virtual. We identified that we need to
observe user typologies that, once diagnosed, can be used as a tool to develop
library services. We searched the
literature and identified that typologies have been classified within the
library and digital contexts but that the previous research did not drill down
specifically enough for the purposes of our research within the U.K. hospital
library context.
Methods
The
short life working group did not identify a relevant user typology
classification tool within the literature, suitable for a U.K. hospital library
setting, therefore we created our own typology classification system. The team used mixed methods research
including literature analysis, mass observation, visualization tools and
ethnographic research. We tabulated data
across eleven library sites within the NHSGGC Library Network.
Initial
scoping of Methods
Initial
discussions using Smart board® technology enabled the working group
to model, and have interactive discussions, around the definitions of users’
activities and how to collect the data.
Analysis
of the literature noted that mixed methods research methodology such as
observation is frequently used with typology work (Bilandzic & Foth,
2013). Observation includes the use of
qualitative and quantitative data. We
decided, using this evidence, to create an observational method that would suit
our small-scale library setting but that would be generic enough to be used in
any hospital library.
At
this stage, we devised an initial prototype three-dimensional activity axis
grid (Figure 1) based on our knowledge of NHS U.K. hospital libraries, and the
review of literature around changing library environments (Holder & Lange,
2014). We
came up with a three-dimensional cube, with gridlines, as we identified three
important dimensions of knowledge behaviour.
The
first dimension is the method of use, namely “traditional” use (e.g. reading a
book) or “virtual” (e.g. searching a database), giving the potential for
“mixed” use (e.g. reading a book whilst utilising a laptop). Our second dimension is whether the activity
is undertaken alone (solitary) or within a group.
The
third dimension is the activity itself within the library setting which, we
identified, could consist of study (e.g. reading a textbook), information
seeking (e.g. asking library staff for help with finding an electronic journal
article), or reflection/learning (e.g. writing up an audit).
Figure 1
Prototype three-dimensional activity axis grid.
Test
Observation
Observation
includes the use of qualitative (e.g. asking library users what space they use
within the library for what purpose) and quantitative data (e.g. numbers of
people sitting at a particular seat within the library over a given
period). Urquart (2015) defines this
type of observation as “simple observation” which enables you to watch what is
happening but not intervene or change the activity. We felt that simple observation would avoid
the need to request ethics approval, and cause less disruption to our end-users
as frequent interruptions to question them would have disrupted their library
activity and studies.
In
October 2013, the group tested an initial observational tool on five NHSGGC
library sites. One hundred individual
bits of test data were collected. After
collection, we discussed our methods and any problems that had arisen, such as
being unsure which box to tick for various activities. This test also identified that our data
collection did not capture the three-dimensional activity that we had sought to
identify with the help of our prototype three-dimensional activity axis grid
(Figure 1).
Using
these data we redesigned the observation sheets several times, utilising test
data, until we finalized our mass observation grid design (Figure 2).
Following
on from our prototype three-dimensional activity axis grid (Figure 1), we
refined the observation grid (Figure 2) into two separate grids each featuring
an axis of medium of information exchange versus an axis of library
activity. This created a two-dimensional
approach but across two separate facets of use, in theory the three axes we
originally worked to (Figure 1). The
first facet focused on solitary behaviour (individual people working alone) and
the second facet on groups (two or more people working together). This captured all the data we required but
created a more logical measurement.
We
defined the activities into learning, study, information seeking, working and
social (Figure 3). We also identified
and defined the resources utilized within the library space as interpersonal,
book/paper, bring your own device, PC/IT equipment and library staff.
Live
Mass Observation
The
live observation ran over one week in March 2014 on eleven sites within
NHSGGC. The observation took the form of
a paper grid (Figure 2), which was marked up by local library staff doing the
observation at each location. The
library sites varied from larger multi-disciplinary NHS libraries with large
footfall to smaller NHS libraries with part-time staffing and limited space.
Figure 2
Blank observation grid.
Figure 3
Observation grid guide.
Library
staff observed all use and footfall activity within the library setting – and
marked one score mark on the grid for every new activity versus medium of
activity. If users changed what they
were doing, or whom they were doing it with, this was noted on the grid as a
simple score. The record of activity
could be fluid e.g. one person could enter the library and take part in
different activities with different resources.
This did mean that the observation was open to a certain level of
subjectivity and therefore the working group offered an online WebEx®
conference to all library site staff to attempt to minimize potential
inconsistencies, and to explain the observation methods and techniques.
To
ensure consistency amongst all library sites participating in the live
observation we created an observation grid guide (Figure 3) that identified the
initial classification of users’ use of physical library space that we were
aiming to identify. These instructions
and examples of activities and resources formed the backbone of the
observation. This was backed up with the
working group acting as mentors during the week, who were able to intervene if
there were any questions whilst the observation was ongoing.
As
NHS library sites can be busy at different times, due to clinical requirements,
plus one library was moving location during this time, we were not prescriptive
about when sites would observe their users, just that they would observe within
the timeframe of that week. We also knew
that as sites are different sizes we would get different sample sizes from each
site. Therefore, we allowed library
sites the freedom to choose their sampling times and amounts, which in
retrospect may have affected our study sample size for some sites.
Visualization
Once
the data were returned from the eleven library sites, the working group
recorded, analyzed and tested the results of these data. The review of the literature had identified
that visualization of the data is the key to analyzing separate classes of data
(Urquhart, 2015).
We
analyzed the test data using Microsoft Excel® charts to enable
visualization. A promising output at
this stage was their surface contour charts.
Our initial thoughts were to produce some form of three-dimensional
visualization, as it was hoped that distinct typologies would jump out as peaks
or hot spots. The surface contour chart
(Figure 4) created the three-dimensional element we had used with our prototype
three-dimensional activity axis grid (Figure 1). Ultimately, this approach failed as the
imagery failed to produce the clear results for which we had hoped. Whilst the surface contour option (Figure 4)
enabled us to pinpoint accurately the specific cross sectional areas of high
activity of our library users, the contour chart did not provide a suitable
visualization of the axis between activity and resources that we were
seeking. The surface charts did help
towards us identifying the categorizations that we were interested in
establishing to enhance data analysis, at the intersections.
Figure 4
Surface contour map.
We
tested the Microsoft Visio® software package (Figure 5) which shows
an alternative visualization of the data.
This visualization software was rejected because it offered no relevant
graphical interpretation suitable for our needs as it did not show the axis of
information exchange versus an axis of library activity in enough detail.
Figure 5
Microsoft VISIO ® visualization.
We
re-analyzed the data and identified that to create typologies relevant to the
UK hospital library setting we needed to match the intersection of the observed
activity along one axis with the observed medium along the other. During this re-analysis it was identified
(Figure 6) that the chosen composite data of activity type (traditional or
non-traditional) intersecting with medium of information exchange (traditional,
technical or human) gave us the closest match to the number of user typologies
found in other papers e.g. Bilandzic and Foth (2013) and Brandtzaeg and Heim
(2011) who classified into five typologies.
Given the relatively small amount of data collected in our project, we
decided that six user typologies was the maximum number of classification types
into which the data could be split. We
therefore annotated our observational grid and mapped the data, where they
intersected, to our six typologies (Figure 7).
We
focused our typologies research on the medium of information exchange, plus the
actual library activity, rather than actual professional health service staff
or undergraduate students. We did this
to ensure that we captured actual activity of library users rather than
assuming that because you were e.g. a doctor that you would automatically have
the same user typology as all other doctors.
The same applied to us identifying and classifying use by undergraduate
students on placement, as from the literature (Nicholas et al., 2011), we had
already noted that not all users within the same generation used resources in
the same way e.g. we are aware in our day to day library role of undergraduate
students who prefer physical books and older doctors who prefer to use e-books
for their work. We were interested in
what our users used the library for, how this use is changing and not in who
they were professionally.
Results
Collation
of the results of the two axes, firstly of traditional or non–traditional
activity intersecting with, secondly, traditional, technical or human medium of
information exchange led to the six user typology definitions: Page Turners,
Classic Clickers, Knowledge Tappers, Peace Seekers, e-Ninjas and Social
Scholars (Figure 6).
Individual
and group results were generated for each library site and for the NHSGGC
Library Network as a whole. We found
that user typologies were consistent across all eleven Library Network sites,
as we provide the same services to the same users, the only difference usually
being the size and scale of the library resources, library space and library
users on site. Overall results were
collated and e-Ninjas made up 28% of the individual user typologies identified
during this project (Figure 7).
Figure 6
User typology grid.
Figure 7
Mapping of observation grid data to user typologies
categories.
Figure 8
Mass observation results.
The
e-Ninja typology is most prevalent across the Library Network (28%) (Figure 8),
which reflects the move within NHSGGC organizational culture to agile
working. This type brings their own
device into the library and tends to be technologically competent. They use the library space as a buffer zone
between work and personal space.
The
second most popular typology, at 27%, is the Knowledge Tapper, who have
excellent interpersonal skills; they rely on knowledge from library staff and
can be seen as organizational knowledge brokers. The Knowledge Tapper requires a space to
communicate.
An
interesting typology, at 19% of those observed, are the Social Scholars, who
are also the typology most likely to operate in a group. This is due to their characteristics of being
more non-traditional users. They see the
library space as somewhere to learn from other people in a more informal manner
than previously seen within NHSGGC library space. They see the library as a third place.
A
steady number of users were identified as Classic Clickers (13%). This is the type of person who comes into the
library space just to use the PCs. They
use the PCs to learn and work, and use library staff for minor technical IT
issues. We felt that, over time, these
users may become e-Ninjas with encouragement.
Page
Turners were observed less frequently (at 9%) within the library space. This typology is traditional users, those who
come into the space and enjoy learning from books and paper. They come into the library to browse the
stock, will sometimes sit and study, but often take their books and papers to
their home or workplace.
The
lowest number of user typologies observed within the library setting is the
Peace Seeker, at just 4% of all observations, and this is a library user who is
looking for quiet and silence to work.
They are a solitary worker and see the library as a neutral space that
does not hold the distractions of work or home.
Peace Seekers need to concentrate and use the library as reflective
space.
Quick
Quiz
Once
we had identified our typologies, we wanted to test our hypothesis about how we
had classified library users. The
working group created a quick fun quiz using Questback (www.questback.com/uk)
to allow users to find out what typology they might be. We emailed out this link to Library Network
users and we got a return of over 350 user results. The results fundamentally differed from our
observation (Figure 9). The reasons for
this could include the fact that it was an online quiz and therefore attracted
a different typology. It may also mean
that virtual or online users, whom we did not capture in our physical library
observations, participated in the survey as it was emailed out to all Library
Network members. It may also have meant
our questions in the quiz needed recalibrating.
This is an interesting adjunct to the main research and allowed us to
question the validity of the main results of our research.
Figure 9
User typologies quiz results.
Discussion
Within
NHSGGC, each physical library site is shown to have different proportions and
profiles for each of our uniquely identified health library user
typologies. Although typology
methodologies were discovered in the literature review we felt that none of
these would fit the specific requirements of our project, e.g. web technology
typologies would not reflect our users’ physical footfall. We recognised through our observation that
users can have multiple typologies and that these can change over time.
Many
recent articles have focused more on virtual typologies, which we felt would be
hard to capture, within our NHSGGC context given our limited project
timescale. We also rejected Millennials
and Generation X style typologies at this stage, as they are wider generational
typologies and too broad for the purposes of this case study.
The
results of our typologies research in 2014 enabled us to forecast changing
typology use for a new library site that opened in 2015. Through utilizing the data from this project,
we identified that a new-build U.K. hospital library would require more space
for e-Ninjas and group learning types such as Social Scholars, than Page
Turners or Peace Seekers. We input this
research into the architect plans and enabled zoning more space for e-Ninjas
(agile, fluid laptop users) e.g. creating adaptable power points and Wi-Fi
across the library to enable rapid access to information. We required three separate rooms within the
library space, which are used flexibly to suit different typologies at
different times. One of the spaces is
bookable as a group space for e.g. Social Scholars, but when the room is not
booked it creates more individual silent study space for typologies such as the
Page Turners and Peace Seekers.
We
utilized the typologies as a promotional tool when this new U.K. hospital
library opened. We used six specially
designed bookmarks and posters (Figures 10 and 11), one for each typology, with
information about that specific typology and identified what library services
could be best suited to them. The
bookmarks grabbed attention and encouraged dialogue between library staff and
users.
Figure 10
User typology definitions for bookmarks.
Figure 11
Bookmarks and poster.
Future
Work
The
project took a lot longer to scope, plan and action than anticipated. The mass observation was run over one
week. There is potential to run it again
in the future to see if the proportions of typologies within the library
network change as library environments develop.
We
hope this study has added to the literature on user classification tools within
libraries. Informal feedback from other
health sector library staff has been positive.
They recognized these typologies within their own user base and
indicated that they are keen to use this classification system in their own
libraries. Ideas that could be explored
in the future, that were beyond the scope of this project, include the
potential to capture more closely multiple typologies of individuals or groups
over time. Virtual and out of hours
typologies were also beyond the scope of the current project but would be an
interesting project to pursue in the future.
Conclusions
Currently
there is a lack of studies relating specifically to user typologies within the
UK hospital library sector. Our case
study enabled us to create a bespoke user typology classification system that,
when used in conjunction with a programme of structured observation, could be
utilized by other U.K. hospital libraries to gain an understanding of how their
users utilize physical library services and space. Consequently, user engagement and service
development could be more effective as services, resources and physical design
will be based on health-specific user typologies.
References
#UKAnthrolib. (2014, Mar.). Spaces,
places and practices: UCL-IOE joint library anthropology seminar. Retrieved
from https://storify.com/senorcthulhu/spaces-places-and-practices-ucl-ioe-joint-library
Bilandzic, M., & Foth, M. (2013).
Libraries as coworking spaces: Understanding user motivations and perceived
barriers to social learning. Library Hi Tech, 31(2), 254-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378831311329040
Booth, A. (2008). In search of the
mythical "typical library user". Health Information and Libraries
Journal, 25(3), 233-236. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00780.x
Brandtzaeg., P. B., & Heim, J.
(2011). A typology of social networking sites users. International Journal
of Web Based Communities, 7(1), 28-51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2011.038124
Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Chamberlain, D., Elcock, M., &
Puligari, P. (2015). The use of mobile technology in health libraries: A
summary of a UK-based survey. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 32(4),
265-275. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hir.12116
Ethnographic
Research in Illinois Academic Libraries. (2015). ERIAL project. Retrieved from http://www.erialproject.org/
Gajendragadkar, P.R., Moualed, D.J.,
Nicolson, P.L., Adjei, F.D., Cakebread, H.E., Duehmke, R.M., & Martin, C.A.
(2013). The survival time of
chocolates on hospital wards: Covert observational study. BMJ, 347, f7198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7198
Greene, C., & Myerson, J. (2011).
Space for thought: Designing for knowledge workers. Facilities, 29(1/2),
19-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632771111101304
Holder, S., & Lange, J. (2014).
Looking and listening: A mixed-methods study of space use and user satisfaction.
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(3), 4-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8303T
Kline, S. (2013). The librarian as
ethnographer: An interview with David Green. College & Research
Libraries News, 74(9),
488-491. http://crln.acrl.org/content/74/9/488.full
Lanclos, D. (2015). Donna Lanclos - the
anthropologist in the stacks. Retrieved from
http://www.donnalanclos.com/
Lawrence, P., & Weber, L. (2012). Midnight-2.00
a.m.: What goes on at the library?
New Library World, 113(11/12),
528-548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03074801211282911.
Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Clark, D.,
& Williams, P. (2011). Google generation II: Web behaviour
experiments with the BBC. Aslib Proceedings, 63(1), 28-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111103768
Reeves, S., Peller, J., Goldman, J.,
& Kitto, S. (2013). Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE
guide no. 80. Medical Teacher, 35(8),
e1365-e1379. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977
Talvé, A. (2011). Libraries as places of
invention. Library Management, 32(8/9), 493-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435121111187860
Thomas, G., & Preston, H. (2016).
Barriers to the use of the library service amongst clinical staff in an acute
hospital setting: An evaluation. Health Information & Libraries Journal,
33(2), 150-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hir.12141
Todd, H. (2009). Library spaces - new
theatres of learning: A case study. Journal of the European Association for
Health Information and Libraries, 5(4), 6-12.
Typology. Shorter Oxford English
dictionary (6th ed.). (2007) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Urquhart, C. (2015). Observation
research techniques. Journal of EAHIL, 11(3), 29-31. http://eahil.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/29-31-Urquhart.pdf
UXLibs. (2016). Exploring ethnography,
usability and design in libraries. Retrieved from http://uxlib.org/
Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., & Rainie,
L. (2014). From distant admirers to
library lovers - and beyond: A typology of public library engagement in America.
In Pew Research Center. Retrieved 6
Nov. 2016 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/03/13/library-engagement-typology/