Research Article
An Assessment of Information Control:
Understanding Library Service Quality from Users’ Perspectives
Retno Sayekti
Senior Lecturer at the
Department of Library and Information Sciences
Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara
Medan, Indonesia
Email: retnosayekti69@uinsu.ac.id
Muhammad Aditya
Librarian
Universitas Islam Negeri
Sumatera Utara
Medan, Indonesia
Email: muhammad.aditya@uinsu.ac.id
Nurhayani
Lecturer at the Department
of Islamic Guidance and Counselling
Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara
Medan, Indonesia
Email: nurhayani@uinsu.ac.id
Tessa Simahate
Chief Librarian
Universitas Negeri Medan
Medan, Indonesia
Yusniah
Medan, Indonesia
Email: yusniah93@uinsu.ac.id
Rina Devianty
Lecturer at the Department
of Indonesian Language
Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara
Medan, Indonesia
Email: rinadevianty@uinsu.ac.id
Received: 13 Jan. 2021 Accepted: 20 Mar. 2022
2022 Sayekti, Aditya, Nurhayani, Simahate,
Yusniah, and Devianty. 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.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29916
Abstract
Objective – This study
aims to measure library users’ perceptions of the quality of information
control using LibQual, a survey instrument that measures library users’ minimum
perceived and desired levels of service quality across three dimensions: Effect
of Service, Library as Place, and Information Control. Numerous studies using
LibQual have emphasized the service aspect, while quality of information
control has received less attention. Previous studies have reported low quality
of information control in academic libraries.
Methods – A descriptive
survey was conducted at the library of the Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera
Utara (UINSU), Medan, Indonesia, where active members of the library total
49,892. Using proportional random sampling, 100 completed surveys were obtained
from a total population of 49,892.
Results – This study
shows that the quality of information control in the library of UINSU Medan
does not meet minimum user expectations. Nevertheless, ease of navigation of
information was perceived as acceptable. The study also reveals that the
library has promoted information services through exhibition activities, user
education activities, and social media.
Conclusion – The findings suggest the need for
libraries to improve the quality of information services, including content of
information, access protocols, search time, ease of navigation, interface, and
access from outside the campus. Further, libraries need to conduct continuous
service quality evaluation on a regular basis (using tools such as LibQual) to
understand the needs of users in terms of information control better. The
results from the present study provide strong evidence to support a
recommendation that, in general, universities should provide required resources
and funding for libraries to improve information services to ensure that the
libraries meet quality standards.
Introduction
This research
was conducted at the State Islamic University of Sumatera Utara Medan (later
called UINSU), Indonesia. The university has a total of 49,892 students
consisting of undergraduate and graduate levels spreading to several faculties
such as Islamic Education, Social Sciences, Communication and Islamic
Preaching, Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, Islamic Economics and Business,
Science and Technology, Public Health, and Islamic Thoughts. Student enrolment
in the university automatically enables them to become members of the library.
However, all enrolled students do not, in fact, become users of the library.
From our preliminary observation, we learned that students’ attendance at the
library is very low. Student attendance statistics drawn from the library
system show that the average student physically visits the library once per
year. Meanwhile, the average number of daily access to the library is about 250
students. This number is not comparable with the current number of library
members.
In terms of its
collection, the library has 114,345 volumes of books and subscribes to
electronic journal databases. Nevertheless, the use of these databases is still
limited. Despite students’ lack of knowledge in using them, we observed that
librarians do not provide consistent instruction or tutoring on the use of
digital library services. Training on the use of the databases for the users
was only conducted when the library first subscribed to those databases.
Therefore, it is not uncommon to encounter students who cannot open OPAC or
access the journal databases. There are no library guide or protocols provided
for users to access electronic resources. Students are left confused not
knowing how to operate the computer to access the journal databases. Meanwhile,
access to electronic resources is only made possible by visiting the library
and is impossible from outside the campus.
This study
presents a rigorous method of analyzing students’ perceptions of information
access provided by the UINSU library. With this work, we intend to assess the
perception of students regarding information service quality provided by the
UINSU library. The study is based on the assumption that the alignment of
students’ perceptions, may, in our views, enhance the quality of information
services.
This study aims
to measure the quality of academic library service based on the Information
Control dimension from the perspectives of the users' perceptions. The
hypothesis is that there is a difference between the users’ perceptions and
minimum expectations, as well as between the users’ ideal expectations and
perceptions of the information control dimension.
Literature Review
The quality of
higher education’s library services in the digital era is dependent on the
librarian (Nur & Seran, 2019). Today’s young
internet users form the majority of future library users,
thus libraries are expected to become agents of information dissemination and
exchange, and to provide users assistance with accessing, converting,
analyzing, and evaluating information effectively and efficiently. Gardner and Eng (2005) claim that quality of service is
dependent on whether the library can serve as a source of information for the
younger generation.
Patil and Sawant
(2017) hold that library services are said to be of quality only in
cases where user expectations are satisfied. Khadka and Maharjan
(2017) define customer satisfaction as an overall evaluation based
on total service, over time. However, Huang et al. (2017) emphasize that the
user focuses more on the concrete knowledge desired from the library, while
librarians are more focused on how users learn to discover things with a
variety of resources and technical assistance, and whether they become
independent in fulfilling their information retrieval abilities.
Plum (1994) has
long understood the need for academic libraries to integrate technological
advances into direct social relations with visitors. Library services demand
responsiveness and speedy information delivery balanced with self-reliance
i.e., enabling user independence in exploring and utilizing library information
resources. LibQual is able to measure the quality of library services because
self-reliance and responsiveness are part of the indicators in the LibQual
dimension (Association of Research Libraries, n.d.). This instrument, however,
has received criticism (Edgar, 2006; McCaffrey, 2019; Roszkowski et al., 2005)
despite its wide usage as a measure of library user satisfaction and improving
library service quality. McCaffrey (2019), for instance, argues that LibQual
only measures one-sided concepts in the field of library operations. The
instrument also emphasizes gradual user success and the importance of
independence, but does not explicitly conceptualize the user's experience in
library quality services or immediate need for information, education,
persuasion, or professional assistance.
Service quality measurements aim to distinguish between the actions and
the service of a library. Thus, the measurement of service quality is often in
a user-based survey form. Conversely, outcome measurements help to plan and
assess programs from a user perspective and are more specifically oriented
towards certain programs. Often this is performed by interviewing users shortly
after participating in a library program to ascertain whether the program
objectives are being achieved, and the results can be very helpful for outreach
programs. The outcome-based LibQual evaluates the
professionalism of librarians (McCaffrey, 2019). Thus, LibQual also serves as a
tool for confirming service excellence, thereby measuring service quality.
Some studies discovered low information control dimension in gap analysis
and ease of access indicators (Islamy
et al., 2016; Kayongo & Jones, 2008).
Thus, there is a need to improve services related to easy access, especially in
terms of the suitability of the information searching system in the library.
Information control is a dimension used for measuring service quality
from a content perspective, for measuring access to information resources, and
for measuring the scope of content offered by libraries, as well as
convenience, navigation ease, timeliness, equipment availability, and user
independence in resource use (Thompson et al., 2009). This includes the collection strength and
availability, information coverage, speed and convenience in accessing
information from within or outside the library, and the speed with which users
are able to access information. The availability of equipment and independence
are also part of this dimension. Furthermore, computer equipment availability,
search access, and Wi-Fi hotspot facilities are important factors in
encouraging the academic community to be independent in utilizing library
services.
Access to Information Resources
The various
forms and information content provided are part of the ease of access to
information in libraries, while the use of electronic and online media such as
VLE (Virtual Learning Environment), social media, and websites is part of
measuring library information content and services, determining user
perceptions and expectations (Atkinson,
2016).
Currently, there
is no definition simple enough to explain the accessibility of information
(Foley & Helfert, 2010), however, some experts
define accessibility as “easy access to a large number of information resources
within the system” or “data acquisition or achievement in information
searching” (Blixrud, 2002, p. 158; Nwachukwu et al.,
2014, p.1). A study by Mudarri and Abdo Al-Rabeei (2015)
shows numerous models developed in measuring online access to information.
These include the Access Control Matrix (Lampson, 1974), Mandatory Access
Control (MAC) (Nunes Leal Franqueira, 2006),
Discretionary Access Control (DAC) (Verification and test Methods for Access
Control Policies / Models, 2017), Bell-LaPadula (Bell
& LaPadula, 1973), Role-Based Access Control
(Ferraiolo & Kuhn, 1992), Clark and Wilson models (Ge et al., 2004).
Therefore, institutions or organizations, particularly libraries, must consider
security when granting access to online information resources and must
establish information access security policies, i.e., rules and guidelines
governing the protection and distribution of information resources, as well as
descriptions of the resources protected and how the resources are protected
from misuse and unauthorized use.
Furthermore,
convenience in searching for information is an important factor in attracting
and creating a relationship between customers and the services rendered by a
company or organization. This relationship determines the achievement of the
organization's competitive goals (Salehi et al., 2012). Convenience refers to
the ability to use technology independently, and ease in searching for
information, especially on websites. Library users as consumers have to have
preferences and controls (Nykiel, 2001). The
convenience aspect of information control also means allowing users to bring
food and drink into the library (Gardner & Eng,
2005).
Another
important aspect in information searching, both in local databases and
web-based systems, is the ease of navigation. The navigation system includes
the menu, sitemap, navigation trail, and page view (interface). A good system
eases the difficulties faced by users, preventing them from getting lost while
searching for information and increasing the effectiveness of information
searching (Zheng, 2015). Thus,
the information presented through the web or library portal must consider the
users’ ease of access, as an unattractive interface or complicated menu is
tedious and causes users to get lost while searching. The web
navigation design also contributes directly to the general user experience in
browsing websites and related applications, and there are numerous possible web
portal navigation systems and designs, each with corresponding advantages and
disadvantages. Libraries must therefore develop web navigation systems based on
user behavior in searching for information, not based on content, because the
web navigation system helps to increase the number of visits in accordance with
user behavior. This also provides convenience for users searching for the
information resources presented (Ferguson et al., 2015). Consequently,
librarians ought to involve users by conducting a need analysis using observation
and survey techniques before designing the website, such as the one conducted
by the California State University (Ochoa,
2020).
Speed
(timeliness) in information searching is the time required to access available
information, measured by comparing the expected time with the actual time
expended before information is made available or presented for use (Loshin, 2009).
This time is important, especially in the use of a database system, because
timeliness in searching contributes significantly to service quality from the
user's perspective, and not only applies to manual information searching, but
to digital, electronic or automation-based information services (Foley & Helfert, 2010; Li et al., 2021). Therefore, measuring the
library service quality in the dimension of information control, must also
consider the accessibility of the information provided by the library. The
speed of access to information during searching is crucial, depending on the
environment or circumstances in the organization in which the database is being
used. This aspect is even more crucial in cases where the system is unable to
present the information in a timely manner (Omeluzor,
2020), for instance in traffic control, industrial automation, court systems,
and programmed stock trading. In database systems, the timeliness aspect is
often sacrificed to increase security in information searching. However,
research (Ahmed & Vrbsky, 2002) proves that the
two aspects are able to run simultaneously without anything being sacrificed.
This means that increasing the timeliness of information access while
maintaining the security system is possible.
The rapid
development of mobile technology has dramatically changed information
searching. This is due, in part, to the portability of smartphones enabling
ease of information access, irrespective of time and place (Ferguson et al.,
2015). A new habit of “accessing information through fingertips” has developed
in the community (Zhang & Liao,
2015, p. 62). These changes in lifestyle have implications for
libraries. Information service providers must now package and provide easily
accessible information services, as well as simple and uncomplicated
navigation, thus allowing users to search for information independently,
without the help of librarians (self-reliance). This independence in accessing
information is an indicator of the user’s control over the unfettered access to
information. To maintain independence in seeking information that meets their
needs, users need to have the skills to search and use information (Stanziano, 2016).
Self-reliance and self-determination in the search and
use of information are crucial, particularly for people from disadvantaged
developing countries, including Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Uganda, and Tanzania.
Tanzania has developed the principles of Education for Self-Reliance (ESR) and
adopted them as the nation’s educational philosophy (Sanga, 2016). In ESR,
educated people must be self-reliant, responsible, and democratic. This also
applies to independent learning, relying on one's own ability while searching
for information and knowledge.
According to Tuckett and Stoffle (2016),
self-reliant library users are able to conceptualize the type of information
and scope needed, solve the problems at hand, define the required steps to find
this information, determine the appropriate reference sources to meet
information needs, ensure the reference source is available, as well as to
determine the quality and reliability of the information obtained through
library searches.
Aims
This study aimed to investigate the service quality of
the library of UINSU Medan, in terms of information control. Chen (2015) shows
that students perceive the quality of information provided by librarians to be
so low that they prefer using Google to a library web portal, while Ihejirika et.al. (2021) reveal that users visit the library
website so infrequently that the library needs to adopt social media to promote
the websites. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to:
1.
Evaluate the difference between users’ perceptions and
minimum expectations of the information quality services of UINSU library
2.
Evaluate the difference between users' perceptions and
ideal expectations of the information quality services of UINSU library
Methods
Research Approach
Population
The population of this study was currently active registered members of
the library, with a total number of 49,892 members distributed across various
faculties in UINSU (Table 1, Appendix B). Subsequently, 100 completed surveys
were obtained from a total population of 49,892.
Research Instrument Development
Based on the LibQual framework in the dimension of information control,
the researcher developed a structured questionnaire (Appendix A). The
indicators of information control in this study refer to LibQual covering: a)
scope of content, including the collection availability and scope offered; b)
convenience, including comfort and absence of obstacles in accessing
information; c) ease of navigation or ease of access to information resources;
d) timeliness, the access time required to find relevant and accurate
information; e) equipment or modern devices; f) self-reliance, ensuring the
users' independence in using access facilities and various information search
instructions in the library. Meanwhile, a semantic differential scale of nine
levels was used for grading, with nine being the highest and one being the
lowest. Table 3 (Appendix B) shows the indicators distributed into a series of
instrument items.
Distribution and Data Collection
The distribution and collection of the questionnaire
was conducted using two techniques: visiting classrooms to get representatives
from each faculty according to the number of samples from the proportionate
random sampling technique (Table 2) and also by visiting the library during its
access hours when questionnaires were distributed to undergraduate and graduate
students who were using the library. Since the UINSU has two different
locations, the researcher visited each library at a different time. The
participants were recruited through approaching library visitors and asking
whether they had time to answer the questionnaire voluntarily, with no
incentives or inducements.
Results
Hypothesis testing was conducted using SPSS software
version 25, to determine the mean difference between perceptions, minimum
expectations, and ideal expectations, in terms of the dimension of information
control within LibQual. Subsequently, the parametric statistical technique
paired t-test was used, because the hypothesis testing was performed on two
variables (expectations and perceptions) on the same sample continuum. The
results of the hypothesis test on information control are shown in Table 4
(Appendix B).
Based on the results of hypothesis testing, the mean
of Information Control Perception was 5.43 and the mean of Minimum Expectation
of Information Control was 5.85. The results of the paired t-test showed a
significant difference of 0.003 between the Information Control Perception and
the Minimum Expectation of Information Control. Furthermore, the means of
Information Control Perception and Desired Information Control were discovered
to be 5.43 and 7.91, respectively, while the paired t-test showed a significant
result of 0.000. Based on the basic provisions of the paired t-test, the
perception of Information Control was concluded to be different from the
Desired Information Control.
A subsequent gap analysis was carried out between the
perceptions, minimum expectations, and desired information control of the
users. This analysis included the adequacy gap between the users’ perceptions
and minimum expectations, as well as the superiority gap between the users’
perceptions and ideal expectations.
Differences in Users’ Perceptions and Minimum Expectations
The adequacy gap analysis value was reviewed to
determine the adequacy quality of the library service in the dimension of
information control. Meanwhile, the adequacy gap analysis obtained a
significant difference of -0.42, between the average perception (5.43) and
minimum expectations (5.85) of users in the dimension of information control
(Table 5, Appendix B). Thus, the performance of the information quality and
access in the UINSU library has not exceeded the users' minimum expectations.
The negative adequacy gap score for the information quality dimension shows
that performance has not satisfied users, and indicates the areas for
improvement regarding information service quality.
The UINSU library service quality based on the six
indicators of the information control dimension is presented in Table 6
(Appendix B). According to Table 6, only the ease of navigation has a perceived
value of 6.00, above the users' minimum expectations (5.94). However, this is below
the ideal expectation of 8.01. Therefore, of the six information control
dimensions, only the perception of ease of navigation indicator is included in
the tolerance zone. Thus, the adequacy gap analysis on the ease of navigation
indicator obtained a positive score of 0.06. This shows
that the service quality of UINSU library regarding easy access to information
resources is considered adequate by users.
Meanwhile, the adequacy gap analysis on the other
information control indicators all showed negative results. The adequacy gap scores on the scope of content indicator,
convenience, timeliness, equipment, and self-reliance were -0.43, -0.77, -0.36,
-0.73, and -0.26, respectively. These negative results indicate that the
quality of library services regarding the collection availability, convenience
in accessing the information, time to find information, modern equipment, and
independence of the users, are currently considered inadequate.
Table 7 (Appendix B) shows one item with a perception in the tolerance
zone and seven items below the tolerance zone. This produces seven items with
negative adequacy gap values and one item with a positive adequacy gap score,
namely ease of navigation. Per Table 7, the information
quality and access in the UINSU library is considered adequate by users, but
only in terms of the library's ability to facilitate information and to ensure
users are able to access things independently.
In terms of the adequacy gap, there are seven question items from the
information control dimension with negative results: one item in the area of
convenience, one item in the area of timeliness, three items in the area of
scope of content, one item in the area of modern equipment, and one item in the
area of self-reliance. Based on the superiority gap of the 7 question items,
the most negative score was obtained by the convenience item (-0.77), followed
closely by the equipment category (0.73). This finding suggests that the seven
negative question items are areas where the UINSU library services are not
acceptable to users and require improvement.
Differences in Users' Perceptions and Ideal Expectations
The results of
the service superiority gap analysis were reviewed to determine the difference
in the mean value of users' perceptions and ideal expectations, in order to
calculate the ideal service quality gap of the UINSU library. The service gap
score measurement is presented in Table 8 (Appendix B). The score of the gap analysis on the information control dimension was
discovered to be -2.48. This score was obtained from the difference in the mean
values of perceptual information control (5.43) and the ideal information
control (7.91). The negative results of the service gap analysis on the
information control dimension show that the performance of information quality
and access in UINSU library is currently unable to exceed the users' ideal
expectations. This value does not automatically make service quality in this
dimension acceptable, because the perceived value of the information control
dimension is outside the tolerance zone, between the minimum (5.85) and ideal
(7.91) expectations. Table 9 shows only one of six existing indicators in the
dimension of information control, the ease of navigation indicator has a
perceived value above the users' minimum expectations (6.00). This score is
between the minimum (5.94) and the ideal expectation (8.01). Thus, of all the
information control dimensions, only the perception in the ease of navigation
indicator is within the tolerance zone. According to the gap analysis, the ease
of navigation indicator obtained a negative value of -2.01, indicating that
users’ ideal expectations have not been fulfilled. However, this value is
acceptable, because the perceived value is in the tolerance zone.
The service quality gap analysis on the scope of content, convenience, timeliness, equipment, and
self-reliance indicators also produced negative values. The most negative
superiority value (-2.74) was obtained for the convenience indicator, followed
by the equipment (-2.66), scope of content (-2.54), self-reliance (-2.48), and
timeliness (-2.37) indicators. These negative values
show that users' ideal expectations of the five indicators have not been
fulfilled and are below the tolerance zone. This also shows the room for
improvement in service quality. The quality of service at UINSU library
regarding eight items of the dimension of information control is presented in
Table 10 (Appendix B). The negative results of the gap analysis on all of the
information control dimension items generally indicate that the service quality
of the UINSU library, on the aspects of information quality and access to
information, does not currently meet the ideal expectations of users. However,
the ease of navigation item is acceptable, despite the negative superiority
value. This is because the four items are in the tolerance zone (the perception
is above the minimum expectation).
The negative score indicating the ease of independent
access to information in the UINSU library is currently below users' ideal
expectations. Meanwhile, the results of the gap analysis of the other items
produced negative scores outside of the tolerance zone. These seven areas of
library service therefore require improvement and are not acceptable according
to UINSU users. This statement was obtained based on the perceived value of the
seven items, and shows the results below the ideal expectations of the users.
The convenience aspect was found to obtain the lowest superiority gap score,
indicating that users have high expectations for the quality of access to
electronic resources, and expect easy access from homes or offices.
Discussion
The quality of library services is assessable from the
dimension of information control. According to users, there are at least five
aspects that need improvement including convenience, equipment, the scope of
content, timeliness, and self-reliance. These aspects show the major problems
faced by the UINSU library service. Meanwhile, less severe problems include the
library’s ability to provide remotely accessible electronic information and
provision of equipment that support independent searches in the library to
access printed and electronic information sources. Users perceive that the
library provides good speed of access time, enabling them to find relevant and
accurate information through the library website (https://library.uinsu.ac.id/).
The ease of navigation indicator was concluded to be
the only acceptable poor service performance in the information control
dimension. This is related to the ease of independent information access in the
UINSU library.
Meanwhile, the most unacceptable indicator was
convenience, meaning users expect high-quality access to library electronic resources,
irrespective of location. The fact that students prefer using Google Search
Engine to library databases when seeking information indicates that the library
does not provide enough convenient access to the information needed by the
users. For this case, Badke (2014) suggests three
ways of designing a library portal to be convenient for the users; first,
simplify the tools without abandoning the features that make it better than
Google and second, help users find convenience in the proprietary academic
search tools by teaching the structure of databases. Since convenience can be
regarded as multiple dimensions of the time cost, energy cost, and
psychological cost, simplifying the search tool will help improve the quality
of information. Convenience of information seeking includes ease of use, ease
of access, and immediacy of access to information resources.
In this study, the users were also found to be
intolerant of the low performance in other categories. Subsequently, the
service aspects regarding the library website, the scope of printed and
electronic collections in accordance with user needs, as well as the
availability of modern information access equipment, also contribute to the
fulfillment of users' expectations in the information control dimension.
The weaknesses of library services in the aspects
described above, do not necessarily indicate unavailability of services; for
example, the UINSU library was found to have subscribed to various electronic
journal databases including Emerald Insight, Ebscohost,
and Cambridge Core, in addition to making computers available. Furthermore, the
website https://library.uinsu.ac.id/ was made available to provide access to various information sources.
However, the low scores given by users on the aspects above indicate problems
of information quality and access to library services, and the need for
increased promotional activities.
Promotion is an important factor for the use of
information sources owned by libraries, as it serves as an effort to socialize
the library's services and numerous information sources, and to educate users
(Patil & Pradhan, 2014). Also, exhibitions have had a significant impact on
the use of information sources (Delawska-Elliott et al., 2015). Library users
additionally reported that the promotion of library information sources through
social media including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, triggered them to pay
more attention. Several studies have shown that the use of social media
networks is effective in promoting activities or services (Islam & Habiba, 2015; Quadri & Adebayo Idowu, 2016). A study by
Salisbury et al. (2012) shows
that students also use social media to follow professors and library services.
The ineffective use of social media as a means of engaging library users was
discovered to be due to inadequate purpose and planning in the social media
marketing approach (Ihejirika
et al., 2021). In addition, since September 2018, the UINSU library has
made efforts to reach the public, especially the university’s students, by
using the library’s Instagram account. Research shows that the use of social
media for library promotion has proven to be effective to build trust and
relationships with library users (Lund & Wang, 2021). Also, a library
festival is held at the end of each year, with various promotional activities
and library value campaigns targeted at users. Furthermore, training activities
for journal databases are conducted, in relation to efforts for promoting
electronic information sources. These databases are introduced to various
departments in the UINSU Medan, and some of the activities are conducted for
postgraduate students at both masters and doctoral levels.
The library needs to manage marketing and promotional
activities by formally setting a plan at the beginning of each year and
conducting program evaluation at the end (Delawska-Elliott et al., 2015).
Richardson and Kennedy (2014) suggest nine components of a marketing cycle,
they are: project description, current market, SWOT analysis (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats), target market, marketing goals and
objectives, marketing strategies, action plan, management, and assessment. In
summary, librarians need to be aware that marketing library information
services is an integral part of librarians’ activities (Bedenbaugh,
2016).
Conclusion
This study suggests that there is a need for the
improvement of information service quality. Therefore, the UINSU library should
consider improving convenience, equipment, the scope of content, timeliness,
and self-reliance aspects in information services. Academic libraries serve
students at different level of studies, as well as lecturers, and researchers
who might have different information needs. Therefore, providing information to
these user groups also needs to be taken into account. Each user group,
including lecturers, undergraduate, postgraduate, and doctorate students, as well
as researchers ought to be represented in the library’s information provision.
However, Kayongo and Jones (2008) showed that satisfying each user group is a
challenge for libraries. Nevertheless, today’s Generation Y requires libraries
to be accessible 24/7, which means that libraries must provide facilities that
ensure accessibility at all times.
Although incorporating social media to promote
information access has proven effective (Islam & Habiba, 2015), it is not
sufficient to just teach users information skills. Further, if social media is
used to promote information access, it must be well-organized (Ihejirika et al., 2021), planned carefully, and executed
regularly (Patil & Pradhan, 2014). In addition, academic libraries must
conduct library instruction programs on a regular basis as part of their
outreach, to provide assistance to those users needing to improve their skills
Libraries should consider using tools such as LibQual
to analyze user information needs and continuously improve the quality of
information control services. Ignoring these aspects of managing and presenting
information will produce lower levels of user satisfaction and increase the gap
between perception and ideal expectations. The library needs to conduct
well-planned library promotional activities to market its digital products
(including journal subscriptions) to users, keeping in mind that social media
platforms, such as Facebook, have proven to be effective for promoting library
information content. Libraries can employ mixed methods approaches, formally
and informally, to educate users about information literacy skills so that they
can be independent in searching for and using information to solve problems.
The present study was conducted at an Islamic
university in Southeast Asia, but the findings are consistent with studies from
other countries. Thus, the results from the present study provide strong
evidence to suggest that, in general, universities should provide required
resources and funding for libraries to improve information services to ensure
that libraries meet quality standards. The present study also
provides insight into how universities, in general, might allocate
funds for collection development and modern equipment, as well as resources for
user education. The study contributes to the extant literature by revisiting
the LibQual model (Association of Research Libraries, n.d.)
This study is limited in that this work is preliminary
and further research on how to implement information literacy courses into the
curriculum needs to be conducted. In-depth research regarding strategies for
academic libraries to enhance library quality is also required.
Author Contributions
Retno Sayekti: Conceptualization, Software, Writing – review & editing Muhammad
Aditya: Methodology, Data curation and analysis Nurhayani:
Writing – original draft Tessa Simahate: Visualization,
Investigation Yusniah: Supervision Rina
Devianty: Validation
References
Ahmed, Q. N., & Vrbsky, S. V. (2002). Maintaining
security and timeliness in real-time database system. Journal of Systems and
Software, 61(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(01)00111-X
Association of Research
Libraries. (n.d.). LibQUAL+ charting
library service quality. http://www.libqual.org
Atkinson, J. (2016). Reviews
of library services: An overview. In Quality and the academic library:
Reviewing, assessing and enhancing service provision. (pp. 57–60). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802105-7.00006-3
Badke, W. (2014). The convenience
factor in information seeking. Online Searcher, 38(6). https://www.infotoday.com/OnlineSearcher/Articles/InfoLit-Land/The-Convenience-Factor-in-Information-Seeking-100274.shtml?
Bedenbaugh, R. A. (2016). Marketing is
our game: Tackling the library awareness gap. Public Services Quarterly,
12(4), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2016.1231603
Bell, D., & LaPadula, L. J. (1973). Secure computer systems:
Mathematical foundations. In MITRE Technical Report 2547 (Vol. 1, Issue
MTR-2547). http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cja/LPS12b/refs/belllapadula1.pdf
Blixrud, J. C. (2002). Library
quality assessment: LibQUAL+TM. Statistics
in Practice – Measuring & Managing, 155–161. https://www.lboro.ac.uk/microsites/infosci/lisu/downloads/statsinpractice-pdfs/blixrudposter.pdf
Chen, Y. H. (2015). Testing
the impact of an information literacy course: Undergraduates’ perceptions and
use of the university libraries’ web portal. Library & Information
Science Research, 37(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.04.002
Delawska-Elliott, B., Grinstead, C., & Martin, H. J. (2015). Developing a
marketing orientation in hospital library services: A case report. Medical
Reference Services Quarterly, 34(4), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2015.1082390
Edgar, B. (2006).
Questioning LibQUAL+: Critiquing its assessment of
academic library effectiveness. Proceedings of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301112
Ferguson, A. M., McLean, D.,
& Risko, E. F. (2015). Answers at your
fingertips: Access to the internet influences willingness to answer questions. Consciousness
and Cognition, 37, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.08.008
Foley, O., & Helfert, M. (2010). Information quality and accessibility.
In T. Sobh (Ed.), Innovations and advances in
computer sciences and engineering. (pp. 477–481). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3658-2
Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). What students want: Generation Y and the
changing function of the academic library. portal: Libraries and the Academy,
5(3), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2005.0034
Ge, X., Polack, F., & Laleau, R. (2004). Secure databases: An analysis of
Clark-Wilson model in a database environment. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 3084, 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25975-6_18
Huang, H., Kai Wah Chu, S., Yuyang Liu, L., & Yi Zheng, P. (2017). Understanding
user-librarian interaction types in academic library microblogging: A
comparison study in Twitter and Weibo. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(4), 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.002
Ihejirika, K. T., Goulding, A., &
Calvert, P. (2021). Rethinking academic library use of social media for
marketing: Management strategies for sustainable user engagement. Journal of
Library Administration, 61(1), 58-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1845547
Islam, M. M., & Habiba,
U. (2015). Use of social media in marketing of library and information services
in Bangladesh. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 35(4),
299–303. https://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/8455/4982
Islamy, M. A., Wahyudin,
D., & Margana, H. H. (2016). Analisis
tingkat kepuasan pemustaka tentang kualitas layanan perpustakaan dengan menggunakan metode libqual+tm : studi
deskriptif di perpustakaan pusat institut teknologi bandung. Edulib Info, 3(1), 1–11. https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/edulibinfo/article/view/9042/5634
Kayongo, J., & Jones, S.
(2008). Faculty perception of information control using LibQUAL+TM
indicators. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(2),
130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.12.002
Khadka, K., & Maharjan, S. (2017). Customer satisfaction and customer
loyalty (Thesis, Centria University of Applied
Sciences). https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/139650/khadka_kabu and maharjan_ soniya.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Lampson, B. W. (1974).
Protection. Information Sciences, 18–24.
Li, H., Chen, Z., & Guo,
Q. (2021). The evolution and approaches of information analysis service of
university libraries in China. Science & Technology Libraries, 40(1),
52-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2020.1830921
Loshin, D. (2009). Data quality
and MDM. In D. Loshin (Ed.), Master data
management. (pp. 87–103). Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-374225-4.00005-9
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T.
(2021). Information dissemination and interactions in higher education social
media posts. Journal of Promotion Management, 27(4), 547-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1851848
McCaffrey, C. (2019).
Transforming the university library one step at a time: A ten year LibQUAL + review. New Review of Academic Librarianship,
25(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2018.1511438
Mudarri, T., & Abdo Al-Rabeei, S. (2015). Security fundamentals : Access control
models. International Journal of Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice,
7, 259–262. http://www.itpb.eu/index.php/ct-menu-item-3/15-economics/193-7-cislo-48-clanok
Nunes Leal Franqueira, V. (2006). Access Control from an
Intrusion Detection Perspective. (CTIT Technical Report Series; No. 06-10).
Centre for Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT)
Nur, M., & Seran, M. S. B. (2020). Service quality of border region
higher education libraries. Jurnal Ad’ministrare,
6(2), 145. https://doi.org/10.26858/ja.v6i2.12429
Nwachukwu, V. N., Lucky, A.
T., & Salami, P. F. (2014). Availability, accessibility and use of
information resources and services among information seekers of Lafia Public
Library in Nasarawa State. Information and Knowledge Management, 4(10),
1–12. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234671811.pdf
Nykiel, R. A. (2001). Technology,
convenience and consumption. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing,
7(4), 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1300/J150v07n04_07
Ochoa, I. V. (2020).
Navigation design and library terminology: Findings from a user-centered
usability study on a library website. Information Technology and Libraries,
39(4). https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v39i4.12123
Omeluzor, S. U. (2020). Evaluation
of Integrated Library System (ILS) use in university libraries in Nigeria: An empirical
study of adoption, performance, achievements, and shortcomings. Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 15(4), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29604
Patil, S. K., & Pradhan,
P. (2014). Library promotion practices and marketing of library services: A
role of library professionals. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
133, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.191
Patil, S., & Sawant, S.
(2017, January 24-25). Service quality
expectations of academic library users [Paper presentation]. National
Conference on Enhancing the Role of the Library in Teaching and Learning, Pune,
Maharashtra, India. http://eprints.rclis.org/32356/
Plum, T. (1994). Academic
libraries and the rituals of knowledge. RQ, 33(4), 496–508. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20862529
Porat, L. (2013). Marketing and
assessment in academic libraries: A marriage of convenience or true love? Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 8(2), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.18438/b8fs5m
Quadri, G. O., & Adebayo
Idowu, O. (2016). Social media use by librarians for information dissemination
in three federal university libraries in Southwest Nigeria. Journal of
Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 10(1–2),
30–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2016.1156597
Richardson, H. A. H., &
Kennedy, M. R. (2014). How to market your library’s electronic resources. The Serials Librarian, 67(1),
42–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.899289
Roszkowski, M. J., Baky, J. S., & Jones, D. B. (2005). So which score on
the LibQual+TM tells me if library users
are satisfied? Library & Information Science Research, 27(4),
424–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2005.08.002
Salehi, F., Abdollahbeigi, B., Langroudi, A.
C., & Salehi, F. (2012). The impact of website information convenience on
e-commerce success of companies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
57, 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1201
Salisbury, L., Laincz, J., & Smith, J. J. (2012). Science and
technology undergraduate students’ use of the internet, cell phones and social
networking sites to access library information. Issues in Science and
Technology Librarianship, 69. https://doi.org/10.5062/F4SB43PD
Sanga, I. (2016). Education
for self reliance: Nyerere’s policy recommendations
in the context of Tanzania. African Research Journal of Education and Social
Sciences, 3. http://arjess.org/education-for-self-reliance-nyereres-policy-recommendations-in-the-context-of-tanzania/
Stanziano, S. (2016). Information
seeking behavior of older adults. The
Serials Librarian, 71(3–4), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2016.1230532
Thompson, B., Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2009). Item sampling in
service quality assessment surveys to improve response rates and reduce
respondent burden: The “LibQUAL+® Lite” example. Performance
Measurement and Metrics, 10(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/14678040910949657
Tuckett, H. W., & Stoffle, C. J. (2016). Learning theory and the self-reliant
library user. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 24(1),
58–66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25827283
Verification and Test
Methods for Access Control Policies / Models, NIST Special Publication 800-192
68 (2017). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-192
Zhang, J., & Liao, B.
(2015). Learning on the fingertips: The opportunities and challenges of
educational apps. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(20),
62–67. https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/24198/24771
Zheng, G. (2015). Web
navigation systems for information seeking. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of information science and technology. (pp. 7693–7701). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch758
Appendix A
Survey
Respondent
Identity
- Name :
……………………………
- Student ID Number :……………………………
- Gender :
……………………………
- Major/Study Program :
……………………………
- Level (Bachelor/Magister/Doctor) :
……………………………
Part I: Activities at the library
In this section,
please put a cross (x) on one of the items you choose.
- During your time as a student, did you visit and take advantage of
the library service more than once?
a.
Yes (please go to number 2)
b.
No (You do not need to answer the next question. Thank
you)
- How often do you take advantage of library services and facilities?
a.
Rarely
b.
Once a week
c.
Twice a week
d.
More than twice a week
Give your reasons
for visiting the library.
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
- How often do you access library information sources through the
web?
e.
Rarely
f.
Once a week
g.
Twice a week
a.
More than twice a week
Give your
reasons
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Part II. Perceptions
on the Quality of Information Control of UINSU Library Services
Direction:
You are asked to
provide a perception regarding the quality of library services, specifically
the quality you know and feel.
There are no
wrong answers. Put a checkmark (ü) on one of the
numbers you choose and give your reasons. The answer option is determined as
follows.
a.
Number (1) means low perception.
b.
Number (9) means your perception is high.
The higher the
score, the higher the grade of the aspect in question.
|
No. |
Library
Service As
far as I know and feel |
|
|||||||||
|
1. |
The
library's electronic resources can be accessed from my home or office |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
|
Strongly
disagree |
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree |
||||||
|
2. |
The
library website allows me to search for information independently |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
|
Strongly
disagree |
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree |
||||||
|
3. |
The
library has the printed materials I need for my work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
|
Very
Minimal |
|
|
|
Very
Large |
||||||
|
4. |
The
library has the electronic resources I need |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
Very
Minimal |
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
5. |
The
library has modern equipment that helps access the information I need |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
Strongly
disagree |
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree |
|||||||
|
6. |
The
library has access tools that are easy to use and helps find things
independently |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
Strongly
disagree |
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree |
|||||||
|
7. |
The
library makes information easy to be accessed independently |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
Strongly
disagree |
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree |
|||||||
|
8. |
The
library has printed and electronic collections needed for my work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
|||||||||||
Appendix B
Active
User of North Sumatra State Islamic University (UINSU) Medan Library
|
Faculty/Department
Affiliation |
Active Library Members |
|
Da'wah and
Communication |
3,692 |
|
Islamic Economics and Business |
8,458 |
|
Social Sciences |
2,032 |
|
Tarbiyah and Teacher
Training |
18,532 |
|
Public Health |
1,469 |
|
Science and Technology |
3,099 |
|
Sharia and Law |
5,178 |
|
Ushuluddin and Islamic
Studies |
3,016 |
|
Postgraduate |
4,416 |
|
Total |
49,892 |
Sample
Based on Proportional Random Sampling
Technique
|
Faculty/Department
Affiliation |
Sub Population |
Sample |
Sum of rounding results |
|
Da'wah and
Communication |
3,692 |
3692 x 100 49892 |
7 |
|
Islamic Economics and Business |
8,458 |
8458 x 100 49892 |
17 |
|
Social Sciences |
2,032 |
2032 x 100 49892 |
4 |
|
Tarbiyah and Teacher
Training |
18,532 |
18532 x 100 49892 |
38 |
|
Public Health |
1,469 |
1469 x 100 49892 |
3 |
|
Science and Technology |
3,099 |
3099 x 100 49892 |
6 |
|
Sharia and Law |
5,178 |
5178 x 100 49892 |
10 |
|
Ushuluddin and Islamic
Studies |
3,016 |
3016 x 100 49892 |
6 |
|
Postgraduate |
4,416 |
4416 x 100 49892 |
9 |
|
Total |
|
49892 |
100 |
Table 3
Item
Distribution
|
Indicator |
The number of item (s) |
|
|
Information Control |
Scope of
content Convenience Ease of
navigation Timeliness Modern
equipment Self-reliance |
3 1 1 1 1 1 |
Table 4
The Result of
Hypothesis Testing
|
Dimension |
Score |
T mean |
Significance |
Description |
|
|
ICP – MEIC |
5,43 |
5,85 |
-0,42 |
0,003 |
Significant different |
|
ICP – DIC |
5,43 |
7,91 |
-2,48 |
0,000 |
Significant
different |
Table 5
Adequacy Gap
Score in the Information Control Dimension
|
Description |
P |
ME |
AG |
|
Information Control (information quality and access) |
5,43 |
5,85 |
-0,42 |
Table 6
Adequacy Gap
Score of Minimum Expectation
|
Indicator |
P |
ME |
AG |
|
a. Scope of content |
5.42 |
5.85 |
-0.43 |
|
b. Convenience |
4.95 |
5.72 |
-0.77 |
|
c. Ease of navigation |
6.00 |
5.94 |
0.06 |
|
d. Timeliness |
5.49 |
5.85 |
-0.36 |
|
e. Equipment |
5.20 |
5.93 |
-0.73 |
|
f. Self-reliance |
5.53 |
5.79 |
-0.26 |
Table 7
Adequacy Gap
Score per Questions Item
|
Indicator |
Question |
P |
ME |
AG |
|
Convenience |
The electronic resources in UINSU library can be accessed from my home
or office |
4.95 |
5.72 |
-0.77 |
|
Timeliness |
The
website of UINSU library allows me to search for information independently |
5.49 |
5.85 |
-0.36 |
|
Scope of content |
The library has the printed materials I need for my work |
5.51 |
5.77 |
-0.26 |
|
Scope of content |
The
library has the electronic resources I need |
5.38 |
5.89 |
-0.51 |
|
Scope of content |
The library has print and/or electronic collections for my work |
5.37 |
5.90 |
-0.53 |
|
Modern equipment |
The
library has modern equipment facilitating me to access the information I need |
5.20 |
5.93 |
-0.73 |
|
Self-reliance |
The library has access tools that are easy to use and allow me to find
things independently |
5.53 |
5.79 |
-0.26 |
|
Ease of navigation |
The
library makes information easy to be accessed independently |
6.00 |
5.94 |
0.06 |
Table 8
The Superiority
Gap Score
|
Description |
P |
DIC |
SG |
|
Information Control (information
quality and access) |
5,43 |
7,91 |
-2,48 |
The Superiority
Gap Score of Each Indicator
|
Indicator |
P |
|
DIC |
SG |
|
a. Scope of content |
5.42 |
|
7.96 |
-2.54 |
|
b. Convenience |
4.95 |
|
7.69 |
-2.74 |
|
c. Ease of navigation |
6.00 |
|
8.01 |
-2.01 |
|
d. Timeliness |
5.49 |
|
7.86 |
-2.37 |
|
e. Modern equipment |
5.20 |
|
7.86 |
-2.66 |
|
f. Self-reliance |
5.53 |
|
8.01 |
-2.48 |
Table 10
The Superiority
Gap Score per Question Item
|
Indicator |
Question |
P |
DIC |
SG |
|
Convenience |
The electronic resources in UINSU library can be accessed from my home
or office |
4.95 |
7,69 |
-2.74 |
|
Timeliness |
The
website of UINSU library allows me to search for information independently |
5.49 |
7.86 |
-2.37 |
|
Scope of content |
The library has the printed materials I need for my work |
5.51 |
7.88 |
-2.37 |
|
Scope of content |
The
library has the electronic resources I need |
5.38 |
7.92 |
-2.54 |
|
Scope of content |
The library has print and/or electronic collections for my work |
5.37 |
8.07 |
-2.70 |
|
Modern equipment |
The
library has modern equipment facilitating me to access the information I need |
5.20 |
7.86 |
-2.66 |
|
Self reliance |
The library has access tools that are easy to use and allow me to find
things independently |
5.53 |
8.01 |
-2.48 |
|
Ease of navigation |
The
library makes information easy to be accessed independently |
6.00 |
8.01 |
-2.01 |