information-seeking behaviour by academics: a preliminary study

Information-seeking Behaviour byAcademics: A Preliminary StudyDENNIS N. OCHOLLA

ABSTRACT

Information-seeking behaviour by university academics at MoiUniversity, Kenya, is analysed. A survey, in the form of a pilotstudy, was conducted and data collected through questionnairesand interviews among 27 academics randomly sampled fromfour faculties: Health Sciences, Information Sciences, Environ-mental Studies and Education. The results obtained establishedthat a great number of academics depend on libraries andcolleagues for information and that although the academicsheavily depend on textbooks for information, they display greatinterest in, and use, current and research-oriented informationsources. It was also established that the nature of discipline andlevel of programme influence the information-seeking behav-iour of academics and that lack of awareness of informationservices, and non-use of current awareness services and sourcesavailable at the university contribute to limited access and useof the information resources. In addition, academics indicatedthat they need information mainly for career development tocircumvent the “publish or perish syndrome”, but also for theirprofessional and occupational needs. It is concluded thatdespite insufficient relevant information resources at theuniversity library due to budget cuts, academics still depend onthe library for their information needs. Work colleagues arealso an important source of intra-university information. It issuggested that the library would benefit the academics if equalattention were paid to current awareness services as well as

I wish to acknowledge the contributions from the following persons. Stephen Kathurima forcollecting data on the Faculty of Information Sciences, Charles Kirui Bett and James Ndegwa Nderitufor collecting data on the Faculty of Education, Elly Okoti Mutimba for collecting data on the Schoolof Environmental Studies and finally Juliex Waswa for data on the Faculty of Health Sciences.

Author’ address: Dr Dennis N. Ocholla, Professor and Head, Department of Library andInformation Science, University of Zululand, Private Bag X1001, Kwadlangezwa 3886, Republic ofSouth Africa.

Intl. Inform. & Libr. Rev. (1996), 28, 345–358

1057-2317/96/040345 + 14 $25.00/0 © 1996 Academic Press Limited

publicity and promotion of information products and services.Similarly, methods should be devised by the university tostrengthen the academics’ overall accessibility to information.In this way, the circulation of information between academiccolleagues can be maintained.

©1996 Academic Press Limited

INTRODUCTION

Moi University is one of five public universities in Kenya. According to1994/5 figures, the University had 5175 students (including 223 M.Philand 44 D.Phil), 586 academics, 101 administrative staff and 1568 supportstaff. It is financed almost entirely by the Kenya Government. TheUniversity is located in a rural setting where access to informationresources is minimal. Due to financial constraints affecting most publiclyfunded institutions, financing of university academic and researchprogrammes and activities by the government has been significantlyreduced. Campus information systems and networks such as the universitylibrary, telecommunications, mass media, access to conferences, seminarsand workshops have been adversely affected. The academic’s teachingand research productivity is being curtailed by this situation.

Many universities strive to achieve academic excellence throughteaching, research and extension service. Universities in Africa have givencommunity services significant attention in recent years to broaden theirroles and value in society.

The information environment changes very rapidly as alternative andsupplementary information sources emerge, such as the informationsuperhighway, which clients can access for information. Libraries have tocompete with such emerging services and systems to justify their existence.Paul Sturges and Richard Neill1, as well as this author2 have described thefinancial difficulties which affect acquisition in the university libraries inAfrica. Little data is available on how academics seek for and obtainrelevant information sources. Two major questions arise: how are otherinformation sources utilised along with those of the university library?Does the under-resourced university library still have a role to play in theuniversity information system?

With the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) urging for accounta-

1Sturges, P., Neill, R. (1990) The quite struggle, Libraries and information for Africa. London; Mansel, pp.75–79.

2Ocholla, D. N. (1993) Scientific Information and Scientific Communication. In Ocholla, D. N. andOjiambo, J. B. Issues in library and information studies. Nairobi: Jomo Kenyatta Foundation, pp.103–119.

346 D. N. OCHOLLA

bility and cost effectiveness in all spheres of university life and theuniversities struggling to maintain their goal for academic excellence,knowledge of the trends in information-seeking behaviour by academics isnot only vital for the improvement of information services but also for costeffectiveness and cost benefit analysis of the information provisioncentres.

The purpose of this preliminary study is to investigate academics’information seeking behaviour within the university under the informa-tion resource limitations. It is hypothesized that budget cuts in acquisitionsfor the university library jeopardize access to and use of information bythe academics, who resort to alternative sources of information for theirinformation needs. The study explored this question and also identifiedalternative sources of information and how they meet the academic’sinformation requirements compared, with those of the university library.The university library is just one of the sources for information andacademics may rely on other sources.

The preliminary study’s objectives were to identify the types ofinformation resource frequently used by academics, which differ bydiscipline, and to find out how academics learn of the existence of theinformation sources they use. Knowledge of the existence of informationresources depends on several variables: the users’ knowledge, skills,experience and exposure; and the users’ emotional and physical ability togo through the tedious and demanding search and retrieval informationprocess. One last element is the use of the identified information resource.The discipline or rank of academic does seem to determine knowledge ofthe existence of information materials.

A third objective was to find out how academics generate professionaland academic ideas, such as thinking, brainstorming, reading, attendingconferences, and seminars. All of them demand sufficient backgroundknowledge for the incumbent to make meaningful and sensibleconclusions.

A fourth objective was to establish the reasons for seeking information.This is a ‘uses and gratification’ criterion discussed exhaustively by Fiske3

and is the driving force behind the active consumption of informationresources. In the university environment, the reasons for seekinginformation, as discussed by this author in a seminar in 19954, include:career development — commonly known at the university as, “publish orperish” or “invent or perish”; to enlighten others; for professional and

3Fiske, John (1990) Introduction to communication studies. London; Routlege, p. 151–163.4Ocholla, D. N. (1995) Academic Research and the Society. The Challenges. A paper presented at

the Moi University Graduate Students Association Seminar, Eldoret, Moi University 6th–7thApril.

ACADEMICS INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOUR 347

occupational needs (for example, for a dissertation, research reports);personal ego and prestige which relate to the number of publications andsometimes their quality; to confirm or refute an issue; to announceownership and priority in a publication, an invention or innovation; tojustify the existence of, for example a department or research unit, whichrelates to accountability as noted in a recent study.5

A fifth objective was to find out the sources of information used by theacademics. This item relates to the second objective on how the academicslearn the existence of the information sources they use. A final objectivewas to find out how academics disseminate information once they get it.A large number of academics disseminate information through teachingand most of them publish. If academics disseminate information then theinformation provision systems are achieving their social role of makinginformation widely available to users.

METHODOLOGY

This was a pilot or preliminary study which will become a full scaleresearch project at a later stage. Preliminary findings are being reported toget feedback from readers. A survey was targeted to academics in fourfaculties, out of 11 at the university, with approximately 100 teaching staff(staff mobility is high at the university so it is safer to approximate). Theseincluded: Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS), Faculty of Education, Schoolof Environmental Studies (SES) and Faculty of Information Sciences(FIS). The study sampled 40 teaching staff, 10 from each faculty. Out ofthat number 27 responses of 40 were received (70%), distributed asfollows. Health sciences 8(80%), information sciences 8(80%), environ-mental studies 5(50%), education 6(60%). The teaching staff includedprofessors, associate professors, senior lectures, lecturers, tutorial fellowsor assistant lecturers and graduate assistants. These groups were sampledaccording to faculties and departments. Data were collected by handdelivered questionnaires mainly, but also through interviews where the useof questionnaires was not possible. It was observed that most academicswere unwilling to participate in this exercise and demanded feedback fromthe data collectors. Although many academics complain of lacking time itwas surprising to find some of them readily available for interviews whichtook a much longer time than completing a questionnaire. The resultsfrom each faculty were analysed separately both qualitatively, andquantitatively and presented in frequencies, percentages, tables and

5McDonald, S., Feather, J. (1995) British library and information Science Journals; a study ofquality control. Journal of Information Science, 21(5) pp. 359.

348 D. N. OCHOLLA

textually. Summary findings from the four faculties have been consoli-dated into this preliminary report, detailed presentation of quantitativesummaries will be provided when the actual study is completed. Thequestionnaire is appended. Many respondents were uncomfortable withthe details demanded in the questionnaire and the instrument wasmodified.

RESULTS

The results have been presented under eight subheadings below.

Departments and faculties where academics belongThe academics came from the four faculties already noted above. Detailson departments are still incomplete.

Rank and position in the academicsOverall responses came from all academic ranks. The largest number ofresponses was from the lecturer levels with professor levels providing thelowest return. As a young university, the teaching staff at Moi universityare mainly at the base level of the academic pyramid. Some professorswere either unwilling to participate, or were occupied elsewhere, and, asa result, it is not possible to determine whether the rank of the academicinfluences the information-seeking habit. Adequate samples from all ranksof academics need to be collected for a clear user profile to be developedfor an effective information service.

Information resources frequently used by the academicsThe respondents were provided with a long list of information resourcesto choose from. These included: journals, patents, conference literature,dissertations and theses, research reports, bibliographic literature, diction-aries, thesauri, directories, yearbooks, handbooks, reviews, encyclopae-dias, translations, current trends and prospects, indexes, abstracts, tables,almanacs, monographs, textbooks, research reports, annual reports, on-line databases, professional associations, mass media, casual conversa-tions, standards, guides, pre-prints and others.

The differences in responses from each of the four faculties related tothe nature of the programmes, the resources available to staff, the goals ofthe faculty and the nature of the staff. Overall, the four faculties rankedthe information resources they use in the following order of frequencies:journals, textbooks, research reports and conference literature. Others


were: theses and dissertations, monographs, casual conversations, encyclo-paedias, reviews, dictionaries, professional associations, bibliographicliterature, manuals, thesauri, handbooks, current trends and abstracts.The remaining sources are not used because they are either not available,such as online databases, or they are not directly relevant, such as patentsfor the faculties of information sciences and education.

The academics in the SES and the FHS rated journals, textbooks,research reports and conference literature highly. The two faculties arewell provided with resources through local and international linkages andcan afford, through such linkages to improve resources at all levelsincluding the procurement of current journals, text books and occasion-ally, attendance of staff at conferences and seminars. They also haverelatively more experienced teaching staff. Unlike the FHS, the SES is agraduate programme with emphasis on research. The Faculty ofInformation Sciences ratings were more or less similar to those of SES andFHS. It has also benefited substantially from external resource supportthrough the Overseas Development Authority (ODA) of Britain; however,this support did not include funding for current journal subscriptions.This is lacking and cannot be supported by the university library financialresources.

The Faculty of Education ratings were slightly different from the threefaculties already covered: encyclopaedias, journals, text books andresearch reports. This is the faculty with the largest number of studentsand the least external funding. It relies heavily on the collectiondevelopment programme of the university library which is often affectedby financial problems as regards acquisition of information resources.Although this situation has improved slightly in the recent past, since staffstill rate encyclopaedias most highly other information resources must belacking.

Gaining knowledge of the existence of information sourcesRespondents were provided with a list of suggestions. These were: casualconversation, from journal regularly scanned, from journal subscribed to,from a cross citation in another paper, common knowledge, from a reprintreceived from an author, through an abstracting service, from a referencework, through current awareness service, through correspondence, from areview article, through a formal report at a meeting, by chance, from abibliography, through an indexing service, in a formal discussion group,from a book list, from a library staff, from the library catalogue and theresidual.

Academics indicated that they learn of the existence of informationsources through: journal regularly scanned, casual conversation, the

350 D. N. OCHOLLA

library catalogue, common knowledge, reviews in articles, and librarystaff, in that order of rating. Current awareness services was rated lowestin all cases.

The ratings by faculties were as follows. FHS: journals regularlyscanned, catalogue, common knowledge and library staff. They com-pleted only the four areas. FIS mentioned: casual conversation, journalregularly scanned, library staff. (80% of the academics) Several items wererated equally by 60 and 40% of respondents, while the least used were:CAS, through correspondence and through a formal report at a meeting.SES mentioned: cross citation in another paper (100%), a journalregularly scanned (90%), from a review article (90%), casual conversation(80%) and from a bibliography (70%). The rest of the remaining wererated below 50%. The least used with, 20 to 10% ratings, were a reprintreceived from an author, a book list and CAS. In the Faculty of Education,the majority make use of library catalogues, reviews, cross citations andcommon knowledge. Other items rated highly were: informal discussions,journals subscribed to by colleagues and journals regularly scanned. Noneof the respondents mentioned indexing and abstracting services, bibliog-raphies or CAS electronic document delivery services (e.mail, www,Internet).

Academics make use of as many sources at their disposal as possible togain knowledge of the information resources required for their dailyacademic and research activities. Where little use or non-use of an itemfor information occurs, this is because of either lack of knowledge of theexistence of the facility, total ignorance of the facility or lack of the facilityat all.

Generation of professional ideasRespondents were offered suggestions from the following areas: thinking,brainstorming (conversation), reading, attending seminars and confer-ences and any other method for generating professional ideas. They werealso asked to rank them in order of priority.

In all four cases, most academics generate professional ideas by reading.Other ratings were: brainstorming, thinking and attending professionalconferences and seminars in that order. Reading requires great supportfrom print media often provided by libraries. Brainstorming requiresdiscussion avenues. Thinking, requires the reduction of both internal andexternal noise as much as possible so that the academic can concentrateon scholarly work, and it also requires challenge to the thinking.Attendance at professional seminars and conferences is rated low. Fewstaff benefit from this facility because they rarely organize internalseminars and conferences; lack of money makes staff attendance at


scientific gatherings quite difficult; and lack of knowledge of the scheduledconferences and seminars in the profession prohibit attendance. So far,only senior and prominent scholars of international repute and connec-tions benefit from sponsored scientific gatherings. Universities have alsotightened financing of conference and seminar attendance by restricting itprimarily to invited speakers.

Reasons for looking for informationThe academics suggested several reasons. They included: career develop-ment (e.g. publish or perish); to enlighten others; professional need andoccupation (e.g. dissertation, research report); personal ego or prestige; toconfirm or refute an issue; to announce ownership and priority of apublication, invention or innovation; or to justify existence, for example,of a research unit, department or institute.

Respondents listed the reasons they look for information in thefollowing order: career development, professional need and occupation, toenlighten others and to confirm or refute issues. These were followed bypersonal ego, to announce ownership of publication and justification ofexistence in that order.

Surprisingly, only the SES pointed to justification of existence as amajor factor for information. There are reasons for this. The school isreceiving competitive resource support through its links with both localand international partners who demand stringent accountability for theresources provided to continue with their support. Secondly, the schoolruns a graduate programme which depends on research, and a significantamount of funding is tied to research.

Until the early 1990’s, Moi University gave little attention to justifyingits existence. But with the rise of SAP, the demand for justifying variousaspects of the university’s development, operations and activities hasbecame an unpleasant but required activity. This has called for theevaluation of programmes, resources, staffing, and student enrolmentamong other factors. Whether funding of departments and faculties willbe based on performance indicators and criteria, as in Britain Uni-versities, is still unclear.

Where the academics get the information resources they useRespondents were asked to state where they get the information resourcesthey use for their daily activities. The following areas were suggested tothem: libraries, information and documentation centres, archives andrecords centres, direct purchase, and mass media.

The overall rating followed the following order: libraries were first; the

352 D. N. OCHOLLA

other positions in the order of rating were: colleagues, direct purchase ofinformation materials, information and documentation centres (SES ratedit first), mass media and finally archives and records centres. Only the SESdid not rate the library first, probably because of their dependence ondocumentation centres other than libraries such as the United NationsEnvironmental programme (UNEP), the United Nations Centre forHuman Settlement (HABITAT), and the International Council forResearch in Agroforestry (ICRAF). The university library has offered theSchool a branch library which caters to their information needs.

The university library is expected to occupy a central place ininformation provision at the university. Reliance on colleagues forinformation has again featured very strongly. This trend is confirmed in astudy by Olander6 in her 1992 doctoral research, which concluded thatcomputer personnel preferred colleagues over printed sources forinformation.

Dissemination of informationIt is common knowledge that research is not complete until it isdisseminated. One of the university roles is to disseminate information.Respondents were asked to state how they disseminate information oncethey get it. Suggestions were offered as follows: lecturing/teaching,seminars presentations, publishing, broadcasting, through researchreports, through scientific clubs/networks and through professionalassociations. There was opportunity to suggest any other area besidesthose mentioned.

Among the proposed areas, teaching or lecturing was rated first by allthe faculties except the SES which gave research reports equal weight toteaching. The other areas followed in this order: seminar and conferencepresentations, publishing, research reports, professional associations andclubs. Colleagues were not mentioned by any of the respondents in thiscase. Neither was there a mention of on-line information services.

It was expected that staff would rate teaching first because of the natureof the institution with a large undergraduate programme. The trenddisplayed follows the expected pattern within an active university teachingcommunity and credit is given to the publish or perish policy which makesstaff disseminate information in order to gain promotion. If this positivepolicy is used judiciously, but not punitively, it can yield active consumersand producers of information.

6Olander, Birgitta (1992) Personal Information Management in Computer Science Research. Toronto.University of Toronto (Ph.D Dissertation)


CONCLUSION

This study is only preliminary, yet it has suggested issues for considerationat Moi University or elsewhere. It was not possible from this small sampleto determine the different and superior information-seeking behaviours ofdifferent levels of teaching staff.

Most of the objectives were met with preliminary results. Information-seeking behaviour is likely to differ from one discipline to another andbetween levels of programmes, such as undergraduate and graduate. Thiswe believe will apply to the level of research and teaching emphasis in aninstitution or programme. Information resources used by academics arelikely to differ depending on the programme level, the discipline, or natureof institutional/departmental emphasis. It might be possible to link use forinformation with the academic and professional challenge facing theacademic. However, it is still unclear whether there would be a linkbetween the academic’s knowledge, skills, experiences and exposure onthe one hand and physical and emotional capacity to search and retrieveinformation on the other. Overall, it is strongly suggested that theuniversity library is central for information provision. This needs to bestrengthened and emphasis should be put on empowering colleagues sothat they can use these important avenues of information circulationwithin a university.

Factors that might be considered to support information provisioncapacity in a university include:

d Staff and departments need encouragement to develop local andinternational joint research and teaching partnerships, and pro-posals for such partnerships should be provided with a specialsection for information resource support.

d Marketing and publicity of information products and services aswell as provision of current awareness services, which seem to belacking, should be given attention by the university library.

d Casual conversation and common knowledge seem to occupyimportant and position in regard to information acquisition by theacademics. Forums like electronic networking, e-mail, Internet,world wide web (www) etc., health net should be developed andsupported both at the local and international level to facilitateintellectual dialogue. Other useful sources for staff dialogue, whichare easily affordable, are organization of various scientific andprofessional seminars, conferences, workshops and exhibitionswithin the university at departmental, faculty and university levels.Opportunities like inaugural lectures by professors, which areunfortunately neglected at Moi University, are good forums for

354 D. N. OCHOLLA

sharing information. Similarly, staff telephone links and theproximity of related departments can facilitate dialogue. Staff clubsand staff rooms could also be very useful dialogue avenues if theyare well organized and utilized.

d Staff should be encouraged to purchase their own informationresources. These should strengthen the staff information service,supplement inadequate library resources and strengthen teachingand research even when book allocation is poor. The universitybookshop is one area that can support this activity if it is wellstocked with relevant information resources.

d The university should maintain the challenges, uses and require-ments associated with publish or perish because it encouragesinformation generation, utilization and dissemination. Thisapproach may need the development of avenues for publicationsuch as a university press, or disciplinary and interdisciplinaryscholarly journals whose publications are sufficiently supported andrecognized by the university for the purposes of staff promotion.

d Performance indicators mentioned above are believed to be usefulfor quality control and useful for information generation, circulationand use. It would be appropriate to strengthen this aspect as well.

d It has been realised that libraries are important sources ofinformation for the academic despite the offshoot of otherinformation sources. However, the university library suffers fromfinancial limitations, some which can be avoided. The universitylibrary financial allocation should be a fundamental budgetcomponent and a strong and representative policy body such as alibrary committee should oversee and steer its progress.

This study is only preliminary; however, the findings from a recentmasters dissertation7 supervized by this author confirm most of the resultsrepresented in the pilot study. Also these preliminary findings will beexplored in a more complete research study.

7Thwala, Abayle (1996) Information Seeking behaviour by Humanities Scholars. The case of the University ofSwaziland. Gaborone, University of Botswana (Masters Dissertation, June 1996)


APPENDIX. INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOUR BY THE ACADEMICS.STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is prepared at the Department of Library and Information Studiesto seek for information on the information seeking behaviour and communication amongthe academics at Moi University for the purpose of proposing the appropriateinformation provision sources and services. Your assistance by providing the requiredinformation through completing this questionnaire will be highly appreciated. Weguarantee maximum confidentiality for your answers.

1. (a) Which Faculty/School do you belong?(b) Which Department?

2. What is your academic rank?h Professorh Associate professorh Senior Lecturerh Lecturerh Assistant Lecturer/Tutorial Fellowh Graduate Assistanth Others, specify

3. What information sources do you make use of (list in the rankingorder of priority in the spaces on the left e.g. 1, 2,)h journalsh patentsh conference literatureh dissertation and thesesh research in progressh bibliographic literatureh dictionariesh thesaurih directoriesh yearbooksh handbooksh reviewsh encyclopaediah translationsh current trends and prospectsh indexesh abstractsh tablesh almanacs

356 D. N. OCHOLLA

h monographsh textbooksh treatiseh research reports (other than theses and dissertationh annual reportsh on-line databasesh professional associationsh mass mediah casual conversationh standardsh guidesh manualsh pre-printsh Others (please specify)

4. How do you get to know of the existence of the information sourcesidentified above? (rank your choices in order of priority e.g. 1, 2, inthe spaces on the left)h casual conversationh from a journal subscribed toh common knowledgeh from a reprint received from an authorh through an abstracting serviceh from a reference workh through current awareness serviceh through correspondenceh from a review articleh through a formal report at a meetingh by chanceh from a bibliographyh through an indexing serviceh in a formal discussion grouph from a booklisth from library staffh from the library catalogueh others (please specify

5. How do you generate your professional and scholarly ideas? (pleaserank as above)h thinkingh brainstorming or conversationh reading


h from conferences and seminarsh others, specify

6. Why do you seek for information? (please rank)h career development (e.g. “publish or perish”, “invent or

perish”)h to enlighten othersh professional need and occupation (e.g. PhD, theses, research

report)h personal ego and prestigeh to confirm and or refute an issueh to announce ownership and priority on intellectual property e.g.

publication, inventionh justify the existence (e.g. of a research unit, dept, institute)h others, specify

7. Where do you normally get the information sources whenever youneed them? (Please rank as above)

h librariesh information/documentation centresh archives and records centresh direct purchasingh mass mediah colleaguesh others, specify

8. How do you disseminate the information once received? (pleaserank as above)

h lecturing/teachingh seminar presentationh publishingh broadcastingh through research reportsh through scientific clubsh through professional associationh others, specify

Thank you

358 D. N. OCHOLLA

information-seeking behaviour by academics: a preliminary study

Documents