Development of Information Commons in University ...

Download PDF
4 downloads 85 Views 1MB Size Report
Comment
Feb 2, 2015 - free, beautiful, convenient, comfortable, flexible and functional place .... members are deployed on the “service desk/reference desk,” the refer-.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Development of Information Commons in University Libraries of Pakistan: The Current Scenario Arslan Sheikh ⁎ Library Information Services, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 13 September 2014 Accepted 6 January 2015 Available online 2 February 2015 Keywords: Information Commons Learning spaces University libraries Pakistani libraries' survey

a b s t r a c t Rapid advancement of information technology, evolving student needs and change in higher education's teaching methods have greatly affected academic libraries. These challenges have caused the academic libraries to reshape their services, resources and physical spaces by adopting a new service delivery model referred to as Information Commons. This study analyzes the current condition of Information Commons in the libraries of different universities in Pakistan. It also explores the motives of these commons, identifies the problems encountered by Pakistani library professionals in the adoption of this service model and assesses their level of awareness about the concept. 117 university central libraries were invited through e-mails to participate in an online survey. There were 97 libraries who actively participated with a ratio of 82.90%. Findings indicate that Information Commons with advanced information and communication technology equipment and other allied facilities, services, staff are few in number. It also reveals that Information Commons in Pakistan are in the process of development as, in spite of limited finances, libraries have started to add technology equipment in their resources. Moreover, many library professionals also plan to set up Information Commons in the near future. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The revolution of information technology has increased the production of information in digital format and created an environment of information explosion. Rideout, Foehr, and Roberts (2010) report that the lives of today's students are saturated with digital media. Consequently they have grasped this technological innovation to a great extent as they are the first generation to grow up in this digital environment. Ultimately their habits, information needs and information seeking behavior are influenced by it. The students and faculty members at present are increasingly relying on information technology for their study and research work. Likewise Gibbons (2007) points out that there are a number of labels to describe the young people currently studying at schools, colleges and universities. They include the digital natives, the net generation, the Google generation or the millenials. All of these terms are being used to highlight the significance and importance of new technologies within the lives of these young people. On the other end, “emphasis on cooperative learning and group study is gaining popularity in higher education and causing a demand for new library resources” (MacWhinnie, 2003, p. 11). These developments have resulted in changing the concept of traditional use of libraries as now they are perceived by the users as spaces of collaborative learning. The whole scenario has forced libraries to transform their services from traditional to modern methods and ⁎ Tel.: +92 03219423071 (Cell). E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.01.002 0099-1333/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

come up with innovative ideas to cope with the future demands. As a result libraries have started adding more and more technology equipment and electronic resources in their services. At the same time they have redesigned their services, resources and physical spaces by adopting a new service delivery model referred to as Information Commons. Since the conceptualization of Information Commons in the 1990s, its implementation in academic libraries has become a popular solution, as it has been perceived the most successful service model all over the world, especially in America. The motive of Information Commons is to offer one-stop services to users that include a combination of information resources and technology resources allowing them to accomplish their academic tasks at one place. The concept of Information Commons has evolved considerably for the last two decades and libraries in developed countries have moved to employ its advanced type as well, the Learning Commons. However, in Pakistan it is still a novel idea for academic libraries, due to lack of research in this area. Hence there is a need to investigate and promote this modern information service delivery model, as this is the premier study on the topic of Information Commons in Pakistan. So, it can be assumed that it will contribute a great deal to provide Pakistani library professionals a better understanding of this concept as well as motivate them to take it up in any possible level. LITERATURE REVIEW “The relationships between libraries and technology were developed in 1990s. Computer labs became common in libraries as scholars

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139

131

Fig. 1. Information Commons spaces.

recognized the value of technology instead of merely relying on wired furniture” (Accardi, Cordova, & Leeder, 2010, p. 311). Wood and Walther (2000) describe that “our society's digital revolution has transformed the traditional quiet world of libraries” (p. 173). Similarly, MacWhinnie (2003) reported that dependence on technology for accessing information has expanded students' demands from libraries as they want help in using technology, understanding how information is organized, and finding resources. He also claims that these demands have caused a change of information resources and physical places in academic libraries. Likewise, Seal (2005) makes the point that the last decade has seen several major trends in academic libraries all over the world, but worth mentioning in all of these is the trend of Information Commons. This is a new service model which has revolutionized patron services and converted the academic library into a learning hub. “The idea of the academic library commons originated in the 1990s, mainly in universities across the USA” (Daniels, Darch, & De Jager, 2010, p. 117). Beagle (1999), one of the pioneers of the Information Commons concept, initially used this term on two levels, “virtual and physical.” The virtual level represents “an online environment in which users can access a variety of digital services by using single graphical user interface.” Whereas, the physical level refers to “denote a physical facility specifically designed to organize workspace and service delivery around the integrated digital environment.” Malenfant

(2006) asserts “indeed, Beagle's, 1999 work provides a convincing and well-illustrated basis for why academic libraries need to change to an integrated Information Commons model and a graphic conceptualization of the merging of services” (p. 280). Beagle (2002) urged that “the IC must find its optimal strategic fit within the library just as the library must find its own within the university” (p. 288). Later on, Beagle, Bailey, and Tierney (2006) elaborated the Information Commons concept as, “a cluster of network access points and associated IT tools situated in the context of physical, digital, human, and social resources organized in support of learning.” Bennett (2008) describes that “The purpose of the Information Commons is to support learning” (p. 183). Bailey and Tierney (2008) defined, “the Information Commons as a model for information service delivery, offering students integrated access to electronic information resources, multimedia, print resources, and services” (p. 1). “It is generally a specific location designated to deliver electronic resources for research and production that is maintained by technically proficient staff” (Cowgill, Beam, & Wess, 2001, p. 432). “Other IC features generally include collaborative learning spaces, multimedia workstations, hi-tech classrooms, and group study spaces. These features are designed to enhance group learning, to encourage faculty to incorporate technology and new information resources into their curriculum” (MacWhinnie, 2003, p. 244). It is a gateway through which users can access traditional services and print

132

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139

collections, electronic information and multimedia resources, an open, free, beautiful, convenient, comfortable, flexible and functional place where users can self-study, group discuss, do creative work, interactively communicate, relax and socialize (Yao, Liu, & Cai, 2009). Carmean and Haefner (2002) observed that students spend much of their time learning outside classrooms by reading, exploring, creating, and communicating. The Information Commons offer the students an opportunity to foster these activities by providing content in multiple layouts, equipment that might not be available to all individuals, and spaces created to support collaboration and interaction. “Surveys of academic library construction reveal significant growth in number of Information and Learning Commons” (Beagle, 2011, p. 1). Bailey and Tierney (2002) state that much has been written and published on the topic of Information Commons and many of its versions have started to be put into practice. Most of the commons activities include an emphasis on higher technologies and a focus on information access. According to Lippincott (2006) usually, the Information Commons occupies one floor of a library, normally a main service floor, which often includes or replaces the library's reference area. At present, the majority of Information Commons are in library spaces that have been renovated; a minority is in entirely new buildings whereas, a few are in non-library buildings. Similarly Smith (2011) remarked that it would seem, from the recent library literature, that many librarians are defining the Information Commons as a “place” or “space” within a library building. This is often represented by banks of computers where patrons can gather in a “commons” environment. Seal (2005) describes that the “Information Commons can employ multiple configurations, but their goals would be similar e.g. to provide one-stop information services; to promote information literacy; and to facilitate research and learning” (p. 67). In brief, the Information Commons has turn into an important element of today's academic library setting.

Study Carrels with PCs

INFORMATION COMMONS OR LEARNING COMMONS The analysis of recent literature on “academic library commons” reveals that many writers have started to use the term Learning Commons as well. Although both terms, the Information Commons and Learning Commons are being used in parallel, there are some variations that make a difference. Some authors have explained these variations in the following manner. Steiner and Holley (2009) argue that “the concept of Information and Learning Commons may look alike in the beginning, yet in fact these two are different types of spaces” (p. 312). Beagle et al. (2006) differentiated between these two terms by defining the IC as “A cluster of network access points and associated IT tools situated in the context of physical, digital, human and social resources organized in support of learning” whereas the LC is defined as an “Information Commons organized in collaboration with learning initiatives sponsored by other academic units.” Similarly (McMullen, 2008), points to focus that “the Learning Commons model functionally and spatially integrates library, information technology and other academic support services to provide a continuum of services to the user” (p. 1). Bailey and Tierney (2008) portray the Learning Commons as a developmental type of Information Commons that has created a change in learning theory from primarily transmission of knowledge to patrons toward a greater emphasis on the creation of knowledge. According to them Learning Commons encompasses all features of Information Commons but extends its mission and vision by aligning itself from the library to institution-wide. Roe (n.d.) states that “Learning Commons emphasize instruction and collaboration while Information Commons often emphasize technology and digital resources” (p. 1). Hence, it is concluded that Learning Commons is an advanced form of Information Commons that encompasses all features of Information

Quiet Study Area

Electronic Resources

Video Conferencing Room

Printing Scanning & Copying

Simple Group Study Rooms

Reference & Research Services Information Commons Service Desk

Space for Meetings, Seminars & Cultural Events

Presentation Preparation Room

Academic Writing Support

PCs with Internet & Softwares Research Publishing Support

ICT Support Soft Seating Area

Chatting Space

Fig. 2. Information Commons service model.

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139

Ratio 82.90 77.77 91.11

services, barriers in implementation of this service model and awareness of library professionals about it were also explored. METHODOLOGY A questionnaire was formulated after a thorough literature review and a web-based survey was carried out to achieve the objectives of the study. A pilot test of the questionnaire was also conducted before circulating it among the library professionals of different universities. After getting verification from colleagues, the questionnaire was mounted on an online survey tool “Google Docs” and sent to the incharge/chiefs of university main libraries by using their individual email addresses. The questionnaire remained online during the whole month of April 2014. The target population of the study included libraries of the universities recognized by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan. In this respect the website of HEC was consulted and details of all such universities were gathered which were 117 in numbers. The questionnaire incorporated 18 questions about library equipment, services, and staff for learning support of the users. A combination of factual, multiple choice, open/close ended questions was used in the study. Likert scale was also used for measuring the awareness of library professionals about the Information Commons concept, its impact on library services and its necessary elements. Respondents were encouraged to report their comments about the topic by incorporating an open ended question at the end of the questionnaire. Approximately 20% of the respondents provided additional comments. The data was statistically analyzed by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0. RESPONSE RATE OF QUESTIONNAIRE The response of library professionals was very slow at the beginning, as only 30 questionnaires were returned in the first two weeks. However, after follow-up through a couple of e-mail reminders and contacting the professionals through phone calls a further 67 questionnaires were received which raised the aggregate response ratio up to 82.90%. A total of 97 out of 117 libraries responded, which included 56 public and 41 private libraries (see Table 1).

Frequency 31 22 12

16

16

Extremely

The primary purpose of this study is to analyze the existing condition of Information Commons in different university libraries of Pakistan by examining their equipment, services and staff. In addition, the motives of setting up these commons, their impact on library

Response 97 56 41

Moderately

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Universities 117 72 45

Somewhat

The Information Commons service model includes the conventional reference and research elements of the typical library while, it also adds stimulating new services that promote both silent and social group study. Moreover, this model implements and supports new technologies and services in a greater, impeccably integrated environment (Heitsch & Holley, 2011). Libraries in different parts of the world are successfully implementing this service model by allocating a specific floor in their premises and with resources and services such as, computer workstations, electronic resources, ICT support, presentation practice rooms, video conferencing rooms, space for meetings, seminars and cultural events, reference services, research publishing support, study carrels for solo study, comfortable seating areas, chatting spaces, academic writing support, group study rooms and printing, scanning photocopying services etc. Britto (2011) states that “one of the strong points of an Information Commons include in its ability to accommodate a variety of space configurations” (p. 5). In this model the “service desk/reference desk” is considered as a focal point of information. Usually it is located in the center of all associated services and activities of Information Commons and serves as a primary reference point as well as technology assistance point for library patrons. It deals with user queries, provides them basic information about available resources and services and refers them to their required spaces. Here the role of a proficient staff who coordinates with the users is extremely significant. Generally, three types of staff members are deployed on the “service desk/reference desk,” the reference librarian, IT person and clerical worker. The reference librarian provides reference and research assistance to users, as well as guides them in accessing e-resources and services. Whereas, the IT person troubleshoots technical issues encountered by the patrons, he also helps them in the use of available software and ICT equipment and performs other routine technical maintenance duties. The clerical worker supports these two professionals in their work and act upon their instructions. These types of settings offer various facilities to the users through a single workstation. In one station, patrons can browse the internet, access online databases, search OPACs, use software's for assignments and projects, get print outs and find guidance for research work. Furthermore, they also have access to technical support, as well as both collaborative and individual study spaces. The purpose of this approach is to provide the users an environment where they may well complete their academic and research tasks by using technology and information resources under the guidance of skilled staff. Wong (2009) states that “the name of the service model may vary but the core service ideal essentially remain the same” (p. 179). Hence this service model has opened many ways for library patrons of all levels to make the best use of library resources and services for the execution of their academic tasks. It has also provided them the opportunity to opt their requisite space for the enhancement of their creativity and learning. An example of the above mentioned Information Commons service model is presented below (see Fig. 2).

Total Public Private

Slightly

INFORMATION COMMONS SERVICE MODEL

Table 1 Universities response by type.

Not at all

Commons but operates on a large scale and with collaboration of other academic departments. Fig. 1 demonstrates different types of Information Commons spaces which are being employed in various modern libraries of the world. Whitchurch, Belliston, and Baer (2006) have emphasized that “although collaborative learning spaces tend to foster a less rigid atmosphere. One area of concern with collaborative learning spaces is the noise, so care should be taken when placing these areas” (p. 265).

133

1

2

3

4

5

Fig. 3. Familiarity with the Information Commons concept.

134

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139 Table 2 Arrangement of Information Commons. Rank 1 2

42% 58%

Nature

Frequency

Percentage

Specific floor/space Different library sections

20 21

48.78 51.21

ARRANGEMENT OF INFORMATION COMMONS

Universities having an IC

Universities having no IC

Fig. 4. Proportion of Information Commons in university libraries of Pakistan.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION AWARENESS ABOUT INFORMATION COMMONS To evaluate the level of awareness of Pakistani library professionals regarding the concept of Information Commons a 5-point scale was used and respondents were asked to rate their familiarity level accordingly. The results show that majority of Pakistani library professionals are “somewhat familiar” with the concept of Information Commons which is a positive sign (see Fig. 3).

RATIO OF INFORMATION COMMONS Responding to the question regarding setting up the Information Commons in the library, out of 97 Universities only 41 university library professionals affirmed that they are running an Information Commons while 56 professionals indicated that they don't have this sort of section (see Fig. 4).

ESTABLISHED YEAR OF INFORMATION COMMONS Respondents were also asked to mention the year of establishment of their Information Commons. Analysis of the results demonstrate that the trend of establishing Information Commons in the university libraries of Pakistan is gaining popularity for the last 3 years, as 56.09% of the Commons have been set up in these three years (see Fig. 5). So it is hoped that this figure will further grow in upcoming years. The existing Information Commons are named as, Information Zone, Digital Lab & Discussion Section, Information Resource Center, and Learning Resource Center.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

1 0 0 1 1 0

The respondents were inquired about the arrangement of their Information Commons whether they have allocated a specific floor for it or if they are offering the services/facilities related to Information Commons in different sections of their libraries. Results indicate that out of 41 university libraries having an Information Commons, only 20 libraries (48.78%) have allocated a specific floor for the Information Commons, while 21 libraries (51.21%) are offering services/facilities related to the Information Commons in different sections (see Table 2). The reason for offering the Information Commons services in different sections of the libraries is lack of space in Pakistani libraries.

TYPE OF DESK The respondents were asked about the nature of the service desk whether they are using an “Information Commons service desk” or a “simple reference desk.” Findings show that out of 41 university libraries having an Information Commons, only 13 libraries (31.70%) are using an “Information Commons service desk,” whereas, 28 libraries (68.29%) are using a “simple reference desk.” In contrast, out of 56 university libraries without the Information Commons only 25 libraries (44.64%) are using a “simple reference desk,” whereas, 31 libraries (55.35%) are lacking a “reference desk” (see Table 3).

STAFF ALLOCATION Responding to the question regarding deputed staff on the “Information Commons service desk” and “simple reference desk,” out of 41 university libraries that have an Information Commons, 80.48% indicated that they have appointed a “reference librarian.” 19.51% indicated that they have appointed a “paraprofessional library staff member” on it and 43.90% indicated that they have deputed an “IT person” as well. Out of the 56 university libraries reported so far that have not established Information Commons, 5.35% have reportedly assigned “reference librarians,” 50% “paraprofessional library staff,” 3.57% “IT Person” and 12.05% other staff members on a “simple reference desk” (see Table 4). The notable finding regarding “deputed staff” is that those libraries that have not been able to establish the Information Commons are lacking in professional staff as well. Whereas, those libraries that are running the Information Commons have appropriate professional library staff as well as they have allocated a full time “IT person” too. This indicates that the technology related equipment which is a part of Information Commons has become an unavoidable component in current library services.

0 1 0

Table 3 Information Commons service desk/simple reference desk.

1 4 2 0

Group of libraries

2 3 2

Desk type

Frequency

Percentage

Simple reference desk Information Commons service desk

28 13

68.29 31.70

Simple reference desk No reference desk

25 31

44.64 55.35

Libraries having IC 5 5 13

Year

No of ICs

Fig. 5. Established year of Information Commons in university libraries of Pakistan.

Libraries without IC

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139 Table 4 Deputed staff on “Information Commons service desk/simple reference desk.” Group of libraries

Staff

Frequency

Percentage

Libraries having IC Reference librarian Paraprofessional library staff IT person Other

33 08 18 00

80.48 19.51 43.90 00.00

Reference librarian Paraprofessional library staff IT person Other

03 28 02 07

05.35 50.00 03.57 12.05

Libraries without IC

IMPACT OF INFORMATION COMMONS To measure the impact of Information Commons on Pakistani library services, respondents were provided a 5-point scale and were asked to rate the level of impact accordingly. 41 professionals responded to this question and majority of them (25) stated that Information Commons has a “positive” impact on their library services, 11 respondents signified the impact as “very positive” whereas, 5 respondents' signified that they were “neutral” about it (see Fig. 6). So it is evident from the results that Information Commons is playing a significant role in enhancing the current library services in Pakistan. The study of Halbert (1999) revealed the same results in which the reference staff affirmed that the quality of their services has improved due to Information Commons. Likewise Shill and Tonner (2003) reported that “the new, enlarged or renovated library facilities have significantly increased the usage of libraries from 30 to 70 percent” (p. 433).

REASONS OF NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION COMMONS The respondents were given 10 options to state the reasons for not setting up the Information Commons in their libraries. The results indicated 6 major and 4 minor reasons which are presented below (see Table 5). The major six reasons included “shortage of staff” which was reported by 58.92% respondents. 51.78% respondents indicated that as they are already “offering these sorts of services in different sections of their libraries” they have not established a separate section. 50% reported that “lack of support from institutional authority” is one of the hurdles. 44.64% indicated that “lack of space” is another problem; “budget deficiency” was mentioned by 37.05% of the respondents. The studies of Awan, Azam, and Asif (2008) and Mahmood, Hameed, and Haider (2005) also highlighted the poor funding condition in university

30

Table 5 Reasons of not setting up the Information Commons. Rank Reasons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Shortage of staff Library is already offering these services in its different sections Lack of support from institutional authority Lack of space Budget deficiency No demand from students and faculty Lack of interest by library professionals Project is in pipeline Unsuitable in Pakistani environment Other

Frequency Percentage 33 29

58.92 51.78

28 25 21 19 10 08 04 02

50.00 44.64 37.05 33.92 17.85 14.28 07.14 03.57

libraries across Pakistan. The last major reason which was reported by 33.92% was that there was “no such demand from the students and faculty members.” Some minor reasons included “lack of interest by library professionals” which was reported by 17.85% respondents. 14.28% of the respondents indicated that the “project of Information Commons was in pipeline”. 7.14% reported that this “concept is not suitable in Pakistani environment”; whereas 3.57% were some “other reasons.” FUTURE PLANS FOR ESTABLISHING INFORMATION COMMONS Respondents were also inquired about their plans in order to assess the prospects of establishing Information Commons in the near future. In response to this question 51.78% of the respondents indicated that they have plans to setup Information Commons in the near future. 39.28% indicated that they might go for it and only 8.92% indicated that do not have any plans to set up such section in their library (see Fig. 7). MOTIVES OF INFORMATION COMMONS The researcher also explored the motives behind establishing these Information Commons in university libraries of Pakistan and for this purpose a checklist of 14 expected motives was provided to the respondents. The results show that there were nine major motives for setting up these commons. Like all professionals 100% indicated that “improvement in library services” was the basic motive, 95.12% pointed out “growth in research productivity,” 90.24% pointed out “increase of library usage,” “to facilitate the users in their academic activities at maximum level” and “to meet the challenges of digital age,” 85.36% of the respondents stated “rapid advancement of ICT,” 65.85% indicated

Table 6 Motives of Information Commons.

25 Frequency

135

Rank

20

1 2 3 3

15 10 5 0 Very Negative Neutral Positive Very Negative Positive 1

2

3

4

5

Fig. 6. Impact of Information Commons on library services.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Motives

Frequency

Percentage

Improvement in library services Growth in research productivity Increase of library usage To facilitate the users in their academic activities at the maximum level To meet the challenges of the digital age Rapid advancement of ICT Provision of “one stop services” Change in teaching methods Expansion/renovation of the library Restructuring of the reading spaces Request by faculty Request by students To get grants Other

41 39 37 37

100 95.12 90.24 90.24

37 35 27 26 25 18 16 15 10 01

90.24 85.36 65.85 63.41 60.97 43.90 39.02 36.58 24.39 02.43

136

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139 Table 7 Equipment for Information Commons/Library.

Maybe,22 (39.28%)

Group of libraries

Yes,29 (51.78%)

No,5 (8.92%)

Fig. 7. Plans for establishing Information Commons.

“provision of one stop services”, 63.41% declared “change in teaching methods,” and 60.97% affirmed that “expansion/renovation of the library” was the motive behind the establishment of these commons. There were three average motives as well like “restructuring of the reading spaces” which was indicated by 43.90% respondents, “request by faculty” 39.02% and “request by students” 36.58%. The two minor motives were “to get the grants” which was reported by 24.39% of the respondents and 2.43% indicated some other motives (see Table 6).

EQUIPMENT FOR INFORMATION COMMONS To examine the current condition of Information Commons in university libraries of Pakistan, what equipment the libraries have provided in support of students' learning was also explored. In this respect the respondents were given a checklist of 16 items and were asked to identify the equipment they have in their libraries (see Table 7). Results clearly demonstrate that libraries having Information Commons are well equipped as compared to libraries without the Information Commons. For example, all 41 libraries (100%) have provided “network computers.” Similarly a good number of libraries (36, 87.80%) have “scanners,” 35 libraries (85.36%) have “individual study carrels with PC workstations,” 33 libraries (80.48%) have “quiet study areas” and 30 libraries (73.17%) have “photocopying machines” and “printers” as well. 26 libraries (63.41%) have “comfortable soft seating/sofas,” 24 libraries (58.53%) have a “presentation preparation/ rehearsal room with multimedia equipment,” 23 libraries (56.09%) have “free space with movable desk/desks and chairs,” 22 libraries (53.65%) have “space for meetings, seminars & cultural events,” 19 libraries (46.34%) have a “simple discussion/group study room/collaborative learning space with desk, chairs and white board,” 16 libraries (39.02%) have “software used in classes/assignments,” 15 libraries (36.58%) have a “video conferencing room” and 14 libraries (34.14%) have “computer clusters.” Libraries having Information Commons were only lacking in “chatting space” (not including collaborative learning space) and “electronic classrooms” which were (19.51%) small in numbers. On the other end, libraries in Pakistan without the Information Commons are extremely lacking in facilities and advanced information and communication technology equipment. These libraries have neither an IC section nor any “video conferencing rooms”, “presentation preparation/rehearsal rooms”, “computer clusters”, “chatting space”, or “electronic classrooms”. Similarly a very small number of libraries have provided the following equipment like, 11 libraries (19.64%) have “individual study carrels with PC workstations,” 7 libraries (12.05%) have “quiet study areas,” 6 libraries (10.71%) have “scanners,” 5 libraries (8.92%) have “comfortable soft seating/sofas” and “free space with movable desk/desks and chairs,” 4 libraries (7.14%) have “space for meetings, seminars & cultural events,” and “photocopying machine,” 3 libraries (5.35%) have a “simple discussion/group study room/

Rank Equipment

Libraries having IC 1 Networked computers 2 Scanner 3 Individual study carrels with PC workstations 4 Quiet study area 5 Photocopying machine 5 Printer 6 Comfortable soft seating/sofas 7 Presentation preparation/rehearsal room with multimedia equipment 8 Free space with movable desk/desks and chairs 9 Space for meetings, seminars & cultural events 10 Simple discussion/group study room/collaborative learning space with desk, chairs and white board 11 Software's used in classes/assignments 12 Video conferencing room 13 Computer clusters 14 Chatting space (not including collaborative learning space) 14 Electronic classroom 15 Other Libraries without IC 1 Networked computers 2 Printer 3 Individual study carrels with PC workstations 4 Quiet study area 5 Scanner 6 Comfortable soft seating/sofas 6 Free space with movable desk/desks and chairs 7 Space for meetings, seminars & cultural events 7 Photocopying machine 8 Simple discussion/group study room/collaborative learning space with desk, chairs and white board 8 Software's used in classes/assignments 9 Video conferencing room 9 Presentation preparation/rehearsal room with multimedia equipment 9 Computer clusters 9 Chatting space (not including collaborative learning space) 9 Electronic classroom 9 Other

Frequency Percentage

41 36 35

100 87.80 85.36

33 30 30 26 24

80.48 73.17 73.17 63.41 58.53

23

56.09

22

53.65

19

46.34

16

39.02

15 14 08

36.58 34.14 19.51

08 00

19.51 00.00

24 18 11

42.85 32.14 19.64

07 06 05 05

12.05 10.71 08.92 08.92

04

07.14

04 03

07.14 05.35

03

05.35

00 00

00.00 00.00

00 00

00.00 00.00

00 00

00.00 00.00

collaborative learning space with desk, chairs and white board,” and “software used in classes/assignments.” 24 libraries (42.85%) have “networked computers” and 18 libraries (32.14%) have “printers” which are reasonable figures to some extent. These findings are similar to the results of the study of Donkai, Toshimori, and Mizoue (2011) which also revealed a deficiency of ICT equipment in Japanese academic libraries. The above mentioned findings propose that academic libraries in Pakistan without the Information Commons should take up this service model as early as possible. It would boost their infrastructure in respect of ICT equipment and result in improved services. OFFERED SERVICES IN INFORMATION COMMONS The next question deals with those services that Pakistani university libraries are offering to their patrons. The respondents were given a

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139 Table 8 Services offered in Information Commons/Library. Group of libraries

Rank Services

Libraries having IC 1 Lending services 2 Information Commons “service desk/reference desk” 3 Library orientation 4 Internet connectivity through Wi-Fi 4 Access to electronic resources 4 Reference service via the web or e-mail 4 Research support services 5 Instruction on finding articles on the web 6 Printing, scanning and photocopying services 7 Presentation support service 8 Academic writing support services 8 Information literacy courses 9 Inter-library loan service via the web or e-mail 9 Reservation service via the web or e-mail 9 Information technology and technical support services 9 Research publishing support service 10 Other 11 Distance education services/video conferencing Libraries without IC 1 Lending services 2 Information Commons “service desk/reference desk” 3 Library orientation 4 Internet connectivity through Wi-Fi 5 Access to electronic resources 5 Reference service via the web or e-mail 5 Research support services 6 Instruction on finding articles on the web 6 Printing, scanning and photocopying services 6 Inter-library loan service via the web or e-mail 7 Academic writing support services 7 Information literacy courses 7 Reservation service via the web or e-mail 8 Research publishing support service 9 Other 10 Information technology and technical support services 11 Presentation support service 11 Distance education services/video conferencing

Frequency Percentage

41 41

100 100

39 38 38 38

95.12 92.68 92.68 92.68

38 37

92.68 90.24

36

87.80

24 20 20 18

58.53 48.78 48.78 43.90

18

43.90

18

43.90

17 17 15

41.46 41.46 36.58

54 25

96.42 44.64

16 14 13 13

28.57 25.00 23.21 23.21

13 08

23.21 14.28

08

14.28

08

14.28

07 07 07

12.05 12.05 12.05

05 03 02

08.92 05.35 03.57

00 00

00.00 00.00

checklist of 18 services and were asked to indicate those services that they are offering in their libraries (see Table 8). Analysis of the results demonstrates that libraries having Information Commons are offering more services to their users as compared to libraries without the Information Commons. This includes 41 libraries (100%) offering “lending services” and “Information Commons service desk/reference desk.” Similarly a large number of libraries (39, 95.12%) are offering “library orientation,” 38 libraries (92.68%) are offering “internet connectivity through Wi-Fi,” “access to electronic resources,” “reference service via the web or e-mail,” and “research support services.” 37 libraries (90.24%) are offering “instruction on finding articles on the web” and 36 libraries (87.80%) are offering “printing, scanning and photocopying services.” A reasonable number of libraries (24, 58.53%) are offering “presentation support service,” 20 libraries (48.78%) are offering

137

“academic writing support services” and “information literacy courses,” 18 libraries (43.90%) are offering “inter-library loan service via the web or e-mail,” “reservation service via the web or e-mail” and “information technology and technical support services,” 17 libraries (41.46%) are offering “research publishing support service” and “other services” and 15 libraries (36.58%) are offering “distance education services/ video conferencing.” Again the findings of libraries without the Information Commons are contrary to the above mentioned statistics. This includes 25 libraries (44.64%) that are only offering reference services through the “reference desk,” 16 libraries (28.57%) that are only offering “library orientation,” 14 libraries (25.00%) that are offering “internet connectivity through Wi-Fi,” and 13 libraries (23.21%) that are offering “access to electronic resources,” “reference service via the web or e-mail” and “research support services.” Similarly 8 libraries (14.28%) are offering “instruction on finding articles on the web,” “printing, scanning and photocopying services” and “inter-library loan service via the web or e-mail.” 7 libraries (12.05%) are offering “academic writing support services,” “information literacy courses” and “reservation service via the web or e-mail,” 5 libraries (08.92%) are offering “research publishing support service,” 3 libraries (05.35%) are offering “other services” and 2 libraries (03.57%) are offering “information technology and technical support services.” Only “lending services” are those services which are being offered in a good number of libraries (96.42%). NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF INFORMATION COMMONS The respondents were asked to express their views about 20 elements that they consider necessary for an Information Commons section. They were given a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not necessary to 5 = extremely necessary to indicate the necessity level of each element. The ranked order mean scores of a respondent's opinion are presented below (see Table 9). Analysis of the data reveals that 7 out of 20 elements were ranked extremely necessary by the respondents (with mean above 4.00). This includes access to electronic resources, networked computers, Wi-Fi network, Information Commons service desk/reference desk, Information Commons page on the library's website, ICT support, and comfortable seating area. 12 elements were indicated as necessary (with mean above 3.00). These include equipment for printing, scanning & photocopying, quiet study

Table 9 Ranked order mean score of necessary elements of an Information Commons. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18

Statement

Mean

Electronic resources access Networked computers Wi-Fi network Information Commons service desk/reference desk Information Commons page on library's website ICT support Comfortable seating area Equipment for printing, scanning & photocopying Quiet study area User's survey Computer clusters Individual study carrels with PC workstations Presentation preparation/rehearsal room with multimedia equipment Research publishing support Academic writing support Video conferencing room Space for meetings, seminars & cultural events Software's used in classes/assignments Simple discussion room/group study room/collaborative learning space Chatting space

4.38 4.36 4.34 4.17 4.14 4.06 4.03 3.97 3.97 3.89 3.84 3.78 3.77 3.70 3.70 3.58 3.54 3.50 3.48 2.65

Note: 1 = not necessary, 2 = slightly necessary, 3 = somewhat necessary, 4 = necessary, 5 = extremely necessary.

138

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139

area, user's survey, computer clusters, individual study carrels with PC workstations, presentation preparation/rehearsal room with multimedia equipment, research publishing support, academic writing support, video conferencing room, space for meetings, seminars & cultural events, software used in classes/assignments, and simple discussion room/group study room/collaborative learning space. Only 1 element was indicated somewhat necessary (with mean less than 3.00), and this was chatting space. RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE TOPIC At the end of the questionnaire respondents were encouraged to make any additional comments about the topic. Consequently a number of library professionals expressed their views. They affirmed that Information Commons has turned out to be an essential part of a modern library setup, and it is extremely important for academic libraries in Pakistan to apply this service model. They highlighted that lack of finances and lack of institutional authorities' attention are the main hurdles, so government should support these projects for the upgradation of academic libraries. Likewise some professionals who were in the process of constructing new library buildings stated that they will employ this model in the new library settings. Moreover, respondents appreciated the surveyor's efforts for constructing a good survey instrument and for conducting this study. FUTURE REPERCUSSIONS The current study is a foremost research on the topic of Information Commons in Pakistan that will serve as a source of inspiration for Pakistani library professionals to get themselves familiar with this concept. It will guide them in planning and implementing this service model in their libraries. The findings of the study will also encourage the library professionals to make physical and technological improvements in their library spaces for meeting the global challenges. This study has provided a baseline of commons concept in Pakistan and paved the way for further research in this area. Future researchers can get users' perspective on these developments. In the near future its growth toward Learning Commons would also be an area of great interest. The findings of this study would also help to make comparative studies in this field. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The findings of this study indicate that Pakistani university library professionals are “somewhat” aware of the concept of Information Commons. In spite of it, the majority of university libraries have not been able to implement this new service model in its absolute form. A shortage of staff, lack of support from institutional authority, lack of space and budget deficiency are the main hurdles in its adoption. However, it is quite encouraging that more than 50% of the commons have been established for the last three years and in the opinion of library professionals the development of these Information Commons has a positive impact on their library services. The core motives of establishing these commons were to improve the library services, growth in research productivity, increase of library usage, to facilitate the users in their academic activities, and to meet the challenges of the digital age. Likewise 51.78% of the respondents reported that they have plans to setup the Information Commons in the near future. Although, the academic libraries in Pakistan are trying their best to cope with user demands, this study identifies the following shortcomings. University libraries need to hire more professional staff as well as add information communication technology equipment into their resources. Moreover, redesigning of the reading spaces and commencement of modern services is also required to engage the users in collaborative learning.

In the light of these described conclusions, some recommendations are given as follows: • In modern librarianship the implementation of Information Commons has emerged as the need of the hour. So it is extremely important for those Pakistani library professionals who have not been able to establish Information Commons so far that they visit other libraries who have established these commons. Through this approach, they can consult their colleagues about this project and benefit from their practical experiences as well. It would definitely help them in the preparation of their project feasibility reports and in convincing their higher authorities for the adoption of this service model. • Pakistani library professionals ought to review the international published literature on Information Commons so that they might get a clear picture of this concept and grab ideas that could be applied according to their local needs. • Despite the fact that the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) is facing exceptional budget cuts for the last few years, nevertheless its role remains crucial toward funding the academic institutions in Pakistan. The HEC is offering funds for projects that have the potential to deliver significant benefits to library users and improve the services of academic libraries. Accordingly library professionals can get HEC grants as well by preparing Information Commons project proposals that may fulfill the requirements of HEC standards. • Pakistani library professionals should also look for other funding sources to make up for budget deficiencies. They can find project donations from international associations and platforms. For example, The Elsevier Foundation and International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) offers project based grants for libraries in developing countries. Hence Pakistani library professionals may avail of these international funding sources as well. • There is no doubt that the implementation of Information Commons has its benefits as well as challenges. One of the major challenges is that it is a costly project that requires an enormous budget. The lack of finances has made it difficult for academic libraries in Pakistan to comprehend their vision of Information Commons in its absolute form. However libraries can gradually put this project into practice by dividing it into phases. • The success of any Information Commons depends on the benefits it brings to its users. Hence it is also recommended to those library professionals who plan to establish Information Commons in the near future to get the feedback of patrons as well, to better align their needs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The efforts of the library professionals who actively participated in this survey are highly acknowledged. Tasawar Hussain, Deputy Librarian at CIIT, Islamabad is also thanked for his fruitful discussions on the topic. REFERENCE Accardi, M.T., Cordova, M., & Leeder, K. (2010). Reviewing the library learning commons: History, models, and perspectives. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 17(2–3), 310–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2010.481595. Awan, M.U., Azam, S., & Asif, M. (2008). Library service quality assessment. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 4(1), 51–64. Bailey, R., & Tierney, B. (2002). Information commons redux: Concept, evolution, and transcending the tragedy of the commons. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28 (5), 277–286. Bailey, D.R., & Tierney, B.G. (2008). Transforming library service through information commons: Case studies for the digital age. Chicago: ALA. Beagle, D. (1999). Conceptualizing an information commons. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(2), 82–89. Beagle, D. (2002). Extending the information commons: From instructional testbed to internet2. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(5), 287–296.

A. Sheikh / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 130–139 Beagle, D. (2011). From Learning Commons to Learning Outcomes Assessing Collaborative Services. Research Bulletin, 1-11 (Retrieved May 15, 2013, from: https://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB1114.pdf). Beagle, D.R., Bailey, D.R., & Tierney, B. (2006). The information commons handbook. NealSchuman. Bennett, S. (2008). The information or the learning commons: Which will we have? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 183–185. Britto, M. (2011). Planning and implementation considerations for the information commons in academic libraries. Library Student Journal (Retrieved May 09, 2013, from: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/clipboard-blobs.keeeb.com/ 51b64b360147fa0dd301c84c/blob.html). Carmean, C., & Haefner, J. (2002). Mind over matter: Transforming course management systems into effective learning environments. EDUCAUSE Review, 27-34. (Retrieved May 07, 2013, from:https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0261.pdf). Cowgill, A., Beam, J., & Wess, L. (2001). Implementing an information commons in a university library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(6), 432–439. Daniels, W., Darch, C., & De Jager, K. (2010). The research commons: A new creature in the library? Performance Measurement and Metrics, 11(2), 116–130. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1108/14678041011064043. Donkai, S., Toshimori, A., & Mizoue, C. (2011). Academic libraries as learning spaces in Japan: Toward the development of learning commons. The International Information & Library Review, 43(4), 215–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iilr.2011.10.003. Gibbons, S. (2007). Redefining the roles of information professionals in higher education to engage the net generation. Keynote paper presented at Educause Australasia, 260–270. Halbert, M. (1999). Lessons from the information commons frontier. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(2), 90–91. HEC (a). Financial aid development. Retrieved May 24, 2013, from: http://www.hec.gov. pk/InsideHEC/partners/HECFAD/Pages/Introduction(HECFAD).aspx HEC (b). Recognized universities. Retrieved May 02, 2013, from: http://www.hec.gov.pk/ ourinstitutes/pages/default.aspx Heitsch, E.K., & Holley, R.P. (2011). The information and learning commons: Some reflections. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 17(1), 64–77. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13614533.2011.547416. International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (d). Retrieved May 24, 2013, from: http://www.inasp.info/en/training-resources/grants-and-competitions/ Lippincott, J.K. (2006). Linking the information commons to learning. In Diana G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 7.1–7.18). Washington DC: Educause (Retrieved May 06, 2013,from: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102g.pdf).

139

MacWhinnie, L.A. (2003). The information commons: The academic library of the future. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 241–257. Mahmood, K., Hameed, A., & Haider, S.J. (2005). Library funding in Pakistan: A survey. Libri, 55(2–3), 131–139. Malenfant, C. (2006). The information commons as a collaborative workspace. Reference Services Review, 34(2), 279–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907320610669506. McMullen, S. (2008). US academic libraries: Today's learning commons model. PEB Exchange, 4, 1–6 (Retrieved May 07, 2013, from: http://www.oecd.org/education/ innovation-education/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/40051347.pdf). Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G., & Roberts, D.F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (Retrieved May 24, 2014, from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf). Roe, B. (n.d.).The learning commons concept. York University Libraries.(Retrieved May 06, 2013, from: http://librarystudentjournal.org). Seal, R.A. (2005). The information commons: New pathways to digital resources and knowledge management. Proceedings of the 3rd China–U.S. Library Conference, 67–75. Shanghai, China (Retrieved May 06, 2013, from: http://ecommons.luc.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=lib_facpubs). Shill, H.B., & Tonner, S. (2003). Creating a better place: Physical improvements in academic libraries, 1995–2002. College and Research Libraries, 64(6), 431–466. Smith, K. (2011). Researching the Information Commons (RIC). Library Hi Tech News, 28 (3), 20–24. Steiner, H.M., & Holley, R.P. (2009). The past, present, and possibilities of commons in the academic library. The Reference Librarian, 50(4), 309–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 02763870903103645. The Elsevier Foundation (d). Retrieved May 24, 2013, from: http://www.elsevierfoundation. org/innovative-libraries/how-to-apply/ Whitchurch, M.J., Belliston, C.J., & Baer, W. (2006). Information commons at Brigham Young University: Past, present, and future. Reference Services Review, 34(2), 261–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907320610669498. Wong, G.K. (2009). Piloting an information commons at HKUST Library. Reference Services Review, 37(2), 178–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907320910957215. Wood, P.A., & Walther, J.H. (2000). The future of academic libraries: Changing formats and changing delivery. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 13(4), 173–181. Yao, L., Liu, L., & Cai, N. (2009). The information commons at Sichuan University Jiang'an Library: A case study from China. Library Management, 30(4/5), 309–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435120910957968.