Evidence Summary
Faculty in the Applied and Pure Sciences May Have Limited
Experience with E-books
A Review of:
Bierman, J., Ortega, L., & Rupp-Serrano, K. (2010).
E-book usage in pure and applied sciences. Science & technology
libraries, 29(1-2), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01942620903579393
Reviewed by:
Jennifer Kaari
Librarian
East Orange Public Library
East Orange, New Jersey, United States of America
Email: jkaari@eopl.org
Received: 1 Mar. 2021 Accepted: 15 Apr. 2021
2021 Kaari. 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/eblip29939
Abstract
Objective – To determine the usage of and attitudes toward e-books
among faculty in the applied and pure sciences.
Design – Online survey and in-person interviews.
Setting – A large public university in the United States.
Subjects – 11 faculty members.
Methods – Participants completed an 11-item survey covering
demographic data and questions about electronic book experience and
preferences. This was followed up by an in-person interview with the
researchers. The interviews were structured into three sections: opening
questions about e-book usage, an interactive demonstration and discussion of
two preselected e-books, and final follow-up questions. Interviews followed a
general script of prepared questions, but also encouraged open discussion and
dialogue.
Main Results – Most participants in the
study reported limited experience with e-books and only 3 of the 11
participants reported using library-purchased e-books in their research and
instruction. Participants noted ease of access and searchability as key advantages
of e-books. Concerns included the belief that reading and learning is more
difficult on a desktop computer, as well as concerns about the stability and
reliability of e-book access. Participants also felt negatively about the
necessity to create a new login profile and password to access e-books. The study found no difference in the way
faculty in pure and applied sciences approached e-books.
Conclusion – The authors determine that
e-books will likely become more commonly used in academia. Users want e-books
that are easy to use and customizable. In addition, the authors conclude that
librarians need to understand their patrons’ needs as e-book users and
proactively promote and market their e-book collections.
Commentary
This paper begins with the question of whether e-books
have reached the tipping point. Nearly a decade after its original publication,
e-books are well past that tipping point, but many of the questions being
addressed in this paper remain relevant to academic librarians to this day. As
illustrated in more recent reviews and studies on the topic, lack of awareness
of e-books, issues about usability, and questions about e-book marketing and
promotion in libraries remain open concerns (Blummer
& Kenton, 2018; Carroll, 2016).
Based on Glynn’s critical appraisal tool for library and
information science, this study had a 77% validity (2006). The methodology is
well-described and the authors include the full survey instrument as well as
the questions used for the in-person interviews. The description of the results
is robust. However, the study’s validity suffers from the lack of a clearly
outlined research question and the conclusions are very general and are not
well-linked to the results of the study itself. The authors note that their selection
of participants was unscientific. This and the small number of participants
represent limitations to the study and make the findings themselves not
generalizable to other populations.
This paper highlights the value of utilizing multiple
methodologies when tackling complex questions about user behavior and
awareness. The authors note that by following up the online survey with
in-depth interviews, they were able to discover discrepancies between the
findings of the survey and the interviews, notably, that participants who
claimed on the survey to have no experience with e-book usage did report
experience when interviewed directly. Incorporating a demonstration into the
interview process also yielded interesting findings regarding users’ perspectives
on specific features and functions that might not have been elicited from
survey or simple interview questions, particularly given many of the
participants' relative lack of experience with e-book interfaces.
Despite its limitations, this paper has value for
researchers and librarians who are interested in exploring how faculty
attitudes toward and usage of e-books have or have not changed over time. In
particular, it would be interesting to examine if some of the hesitations faculty held about e-book usage have been
addressed by technological advances. The authors also note that while their
study did not provide any evidence in differences between the pure and applied
sciences in e-book utilization, it would be worth re-examining the possibility
for differences between the fields now that e-book usage has become more
commonplace.
References
Blummer, B., & Kenton,
J. M. (2018). A systematic review of e-books in academic libraries: Access,
advantages, and usage. New Review of
Academic Librarianship, 26(1), 79-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2018.1524390
Carroll, A. J., Corlett-Rivera, K., Hackman, T., & Zou, J. (2016).
E-Book perceptions and use in STEM and non-STEM disciplines: A comparative
follow-up study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(1),
131-162. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0002
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387-399. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154