the use of formal information sources in physical science research in nigerian universities

ht. Libr. Rev. (1990) 22, 149-161

The Use of Formal Information Sources in Physical Science Research in Nigerian Universities FABIAN A. EHIKHAMENOR*

INTRODUCTION

Many studies have shown that information needs and use are rather complex issues that must be determined uniquely for specific user groups. For instance, the information needs of academic scientists are not quite the same as those of scientists in industry. Attention has also been drawn to the spectrum of factors affecting information needs. These include the age, educational level, and linguistic ability of the user, as well as factors related to his job, such as, his rank and length of experience, the nature of his work (namely, management, research, development, or teaching), the subject field of his work, the stage that a project has reached, the size of any immediate work team, the nature of the institution where the user works (for instance, academic or industrial), the size of the institution, and the communication structure within the institution.’

The user group ofinterest here are the academic scientists or scientists in universities. What defines this group as a unique user group with peculiar information needs? This very question was addressed by Pro- fessor I. Goodman.’ According to him the difference consists, among other things, in (1) the nature of the teaching activity carried out in the university; (2) the relatively small scale ofoperation of the university scientist as compared with many industrial or government scientists, and (3) the relatively narrow fields of operation of many university scientists as compared with those outside.

Although university scientists may thus be viewed as a uniquely distinct user group, the information requirements are different for individual scientists at different times, and may be related to the level of students being taught, the stage of a research project, and the nature of literary activity. The information requirements of American scientists selected from nine disciplines have actually been investigated and documented for different stages of research work.3 The results are

* Kcnrwth Dike Library, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

0020 7837/90/030149+ 13 $03.00/0 (0 1990 Academic Press Limited

150 F. A. EHIKHAMENOR

quite illuminating in terms of information sources used at various stages. The investigation presented in this article considers university scien-

tists only as researchers. For this group, Menzel delineates three distinct needs, namely, (1) information to keep abreast of developments in the specialty (current awareness information); (2) most up-to-date answers to specific questions (reference information); and (3) report of all the work done on a given subject over a specified period of time (exhaustive bibliographic search) .4

The scope of this study is further narrowed down to the “use of formal information sources”. No pretension is made to intricate details of information needs or use of information sources at different stages of research work. Perhaps the reader will notice the paucity of comments on biographic data such as age, rank, highest qualification and so forth. In general only biographic variables found to be important are discussed. Furthermore it is not the intention of this author to go into the semantic problem ofdefining “use” ofinformation sources. Here the term “use” will carry the meaning of exposing oneself to an information source with the hope or intention of drawing information from it.

If a clear distinction can be made between formal and informal media of scientific communication, it is probably on the criteria of‘ authentication of the information source and permanence of information medium. In that case, the sources of information discussed here would be of the formal type. The formal information sources are those that ideally have been approved through the selection processes of refereeing, editorial, and reviewing procedures, as genuine and fit for the consumption of the scientific community. Such sources as journals, monographs, abstracts and indexes all meet this condition. They are also in a format that is suitable for long-term storage, and in some situations, long-term use. If science grows by building on itself, the formal information sources are at the root of such growth.

In order to use these sources the scientist would sometimes need to make use of the facilities of an information centre such as a library. This paper is, therefore, concerned with examining the variety of formal information sources and library services by which physical scientists in Nigerian universities obtain scientific information.

SURVEY PROCEDURE

This article is based on a subset of the data on formal and informal scientific communication among physical scientists in Nigerian universities, which were obtained from a survey based on a self-administered questionnaire as the main instrument, distributed to the scientists in

USE OF FORMAL INFORMATION SOURCES 151

the departments of chemistry, geology and physics in four Nigerian universities.5 A pilot study done in 1985 at the University of Benin, showed that the questionnaire was clear and adequate. Besides, the comments by some of the scientists that they believed in the purpose and importance of the study was very encouraging.

The final survey was done in May and June of 1986 in four universities, namely the Universities of Benin, Ibadan, Ife and Ilorin. The choice of these universities was a matter of logistic convenience since it was necessary to meet the target scientists in person and elicit their cooperation in completing the questionnaire and granting audience for an interview. In selecting the universities, serious consideration was given to such criteria as stability of faculty, staff strength, and evidence of formal communication activities. There was no question of random sampling. Since the study was interested only in positive scientific communication, the criteria were set to select only the respondents, departments, and universities that would yield non-trivial data.

For a university to be included in the survey, it must have the three departments of interest, each of which should have a minimum of five target scientists of the rank of lecturer and above. Besides, each of the departments had to have a record of at least two publications for the previous two years. The choice of these figures was purely heuristic. It was assumed that a fully operational department should have a minimum of five lecturers and professors. Since formal communication was an important part of the study, evidence of publication that got to the international scientific community was necessary. A conservative threshold of two publications in two years as recorded in the Science Citation Index was set on the understanding that only a small proportion of the publications in the Third World were indexed in the Science Citation Index.

The above criteria were expected to work together to select potential respondents from a homogenous institutional or sampling setting. This condition was necessary for the statistical tests and multivariate analytical techniques used for the various analyses of the data. In this survey and in the sampling setting chosen, university was not expected to play a significant role in determining scientific communication pat- terns, and this was confirmed by the results for purely communication variables. Therefore the number of universities included was ultimately determined by cost consideration and the number of respondents needed for meaningful analyses. A target of at least 100 scientists was set for this study to ensure reasonably good performance of the statistical test procedures. Actually the number of target scientists (excluding those on leave) in the four universities selected was 178, of which 148 (83:/,) could be reached. Altogether 77 of the scientists reached were


interviewed while 134 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to those who were willing to complete them. Within the time available 112 completed copies or 84% could be recovered. This paper draws mainly from the data generated by the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Journals Read Where there is no problem of the physical availability of journals, the number ofjournals, which a scientist read in detail on a regular basis would be both an indication of personal characteristic of literature consciousness as well as an indication of information need. However, there is presently a problem of availability of journals in Nigerian universities which cannot be ignored. Therefore, the number ofjournal titles regularly read by the physical scientists in Nigerian universities may also represent the extent to which the scientists are able to obtain scientific information at their own expense. Table I shows the frequency distribution of number of journals read by individual scientists on a regular basis. The average number ofjournals read on a regular basis is 5.2; while the model number is 5. These figures represent approximately half of the values obtained by Martyn.” It would be difficult to compare the results of the two studies. In Martyn’s study the respon-

TABLE I

E;requenc_y distribution of number ofjournals read regularly

Number of journals

Percent n= 112

0 5 I 3 2 11 3 14 4 12 5 15 6 12 7 7 8 6 9 2

10 4 11 10

Cumulative percent

; 19

33 45 60 72 79 85 87 90

100


dents listed the journals, including abstracting journals, which they “saw or scanned regularly”; while the journals listed in this study are those the scientists actually read intensively on a regular basis. In the latter, abstracting journals are not included. The situation about availability of issues of the journals are not likely to be similar on both studies. The Nigerian scientists would seem not to have access to as many journals as they could read consistently.

It is not possible to determine from the available data to what extent the journals regularly read satisfy the scientists’ information requirements, nor to estimate the proportion of all the reading done by the scientists that is accounted for by these journals.

Table II shows that the mean number of journals read on a regular basis increases slightly with experience. The F-ratio is 3.8 with a probability of 0.03. The least-significant difference (LSD) test discriminates between the new scientists and the experienced ones on the number of journals read regularly. If the number of journals read on a regular basis is an indication of the amount of reading done by a scientist then the data here would suggest that the experienced and, therefore, older scientists do more reading than the less experienced and, therefore, younger scientists. Such an observation does not agree with the results of other surveys including that of K. E. Clark7 which suggest that older scientists make less use ofjournals than younger ones. The explanation given by Meadows’ is that the older scientists have less time for reading, and that they have a greater ease with obtaining information through informal channels.

Indeed, available data would suggest that the more senior scientists are involved in more informal contacts.g The mean number of pro- fessional societies a scientist belongs to increases from 2.2 for the new scientists to 3.1 for the fairly experienced scientists and 3.2 for the experienced ones. The F-ratio is 6.9 with a probability of 0.00. There- fore, if the experienced scientists read more journals as the data in this

TABLE II

Mean number ofjournals for calegories of experience

Meal3 Std. Dev n -

New 4.7 2.6 32 Fairly experienced 4.8 3.0 48 Experienced 6.5 3.3 30

5.2 3.0 110


study suggest, then some other explanation is needed. It is probably the case that the number of journals read on a regular basis by the physical scientists in Nigerian universities is, among other things, a reflection of the ability of the scientists to acquire information sources at their own expense. It may be suggested, therefore, that this ability is a primary determinant of number ofjournals read on a regular basis, and that may explain why, in this study, the relationship between experience or age and average number of journals read on a regular basis is different from that reported in the earlier studies.

Of the 106 scientists who reported reading at least one journal on a regular basis, 52 indicated that they received at least one of the titles through personal acquisition. Table III shows the frequency distribution of number ofjournals acquired this way. The number varies between 0 and 6 with a mean of 1 .l. This is lower than the average of 3 .journals recorded for pure scientists by Bernal.“’ In this study the average number ofjournals acquired by the scientists through personal arrangement is one fifth of the average number of journals read on a regular basis. In Bernal’s study, the average number of journals the scientists subscribed to was found to represent about one-third of the number of journals read regularly. A later study showed that it was up to half of the journals read regularly by physicists.” However, a comparison of results between those studies and this one has to be done with caution. In the first case, the earlier studies may well be dated now; but more importantly, the Nigerian scientists have difficulty obtaining information sources, a fact which precludes any ground for unqualified comparison.

TABLE III

Number of regularly read journals that were acquired by scientists through private

arrangement

Number of’ Percent Cumulative journals n= 106 percent

0 54 54 1 16 70 2 12 81 3 9 90 4 5 95 5 2 96 6 4 100


USE OF LIBRARY

Table IV shows the frequency of visit to the university main library by the scientists for the purpose of using the library resources and services. Thirty-nine percent (44) of the 112 scientists reported visiting their libraries at least once a week on the average; 40% (45) reported doing so once or twice a month; while 2 1 o/o (23) seldom went or did not go there at all. The frequency of visit is independent of university, discipline, and experience. Scientists who seldom went or did not go to the library were asked to specify the reasons for seldom or not using the library. Twenty-three scientists were expected to supply this data, but 25 did. Table V lists the reasons for seldom or not using the university main library.

The scientists who reported visiting the library at least once a month indicated what information sources and services they used and ranked them according to their usefulness. In order to present the data obtained in a convenient table, ranks 1 and 2 were recorded as “very useful”, ranks 3, 4 and 5 as “somewhat useful”, and ranks 6 and above, as well

TABLE IV

Frequency of uisit to the University Main Libray

Never Seldom Once a month Twice a month At least once a week

Percent Cumulative n= 112 percent

2 2 19 21 24 45 16 61 39 100

TABLE V

Reasons for seldom or not using the Universit_y Main Library

Reason Percent n = 25

The library does not have the material needed 72 The library is not conducive to serious work 20 Send for what is needed from the library 12 Have all that is needed in personal library 12 Cannot locate material wanted in the library 8 Going to the library is an inconvenience 4


as no rank, as “not useful”. The data are displayed in Table VI. Accord- ing to the table more scientists gave the highest ranking to journals than to any other reading source or service. After journals, books and then abstracts are the most useful. This agrees with the general belief that journals are the most important source of current scientific information. R. R. Shawl’ had shown from a survey of U.S. scientists and engineers that 700,:, of all their reading was in journals. With the exception of books, journals, and reference service, the ranking of the sources and services in this study is independent of university, discipline, and experience.

Table VII seems to suggest that the ranking of journals is dependent on discipline. For instance, all the respondents in geology ranked jour-

TABLE VI

Evaluation of information sources and services in university libraries

Journals Books Abstracts Reference service Indexes Photocopying

facilities Bindery Carrels for

work/study Film processing ‘I’ranslation service

Very useful Somewhat useful Not useful

Percent Frequency n = 98

Pcrccnt Frequency n = 98

Percent Frequency- n = 98

86 88 6 6 6 6 50 51 29 30 19 19 36 37 26 27 36 37 22 22 29 30 47 48 19 19 21 21 58 59

12 12 26 27 60 61 5 5 7 7 86 88

1 1 6 6 91 93 0 0 5 5 93 95 0 0 7 7 91 93

TABLE VII

Assessment of usefulness ofjournals, cross-tabulated by discipline

Row Chcm ‘Xl Geol ?I, Phys “/0 total o.

Very useful 39 91 27 100 20 71 86 88 Somewhat useful 1 2 0 0 5 18 6 6 Not useful 3 7 0 0 3 11 6 6 Total 43 100 27 100 28 100 98 100


nals as very useful, while the proportions of respondents in chemistry and physics who ranked journals as very useful are 91 o/o and 7 1 y. respectively. It may appear surprising that any scientist would regard journal as not useful. It seems likely that the evaluation of the sources and services may have been influenced by frustration with actually getting the sources to use.

CURRENT AWARENESS

This section takes up the question of how the physical scientists in Nigerian universities maintain current awareness of publications in their fields. Table VIII presents a list of current awareness strategies used by the scientists. It would seem that the most important source for maintaining current awareness of developments in the fields are abstracts and indexes. The next most important strategy is to follow up citations in books and journals. The Current contents published by the IS1 is also considerably used. Next in the order of importance are colleagues as a source of current awareness information.

A study of methods of acquiring information by U.S. physicists and chemists13 showed that citations in relevant papers were the most important means of current awareness. Next in importance were references obtained in conversations with colleagues. The use of abstracts and indexes came third. Chemists, however, gave a higher ranking for abstracts and indexes than physicists. In Martyn’s study, chemists valued abstracts more than physicists.14 In this study, it was found that chemists actually make more use ofabstracts and indexes than physicists and geologists, and that geologists make the least use of these sources.

TABLE VIII

Current awareness strategies used by the physical scientists in Nigerian universities

Strategy

By screening abstracts and indexes 62 Through citations in books and journals 46 By screening the Current contents 40 Through colleagues 37 Through browsing library collections 24 Finding new titles in library catalogue 17 Finding new publications in bookstores 14 Others 12

Percent n= 106 Rank


However, geologists were found to make more use of citations in books and journals than the scientists in the other disciplines as a means of keeping track of what is being published. Chemists and physicists make about equal use of this strategy.

DISCUSSION

This study confirms the generally held notion that primary journals are the most important information sources for scientific research. It is from such sources and informal communication channels that scientists draw inspiration for their research. The primary journals provide an authen- tic guide to theoretical models, methodology, and analytical techniques, as well as an outlet for the dissemination of research findings. Every scientist has a small core ofjournals that he reads routinely while still open to other more scattered sources that his attention may be drawn to at different times.

In this study the average number of journals routinely read is 5.2, which is approximately the same as the modal number. This number should be a useful reference mark in deciding the number of serial titles a university library should have in science disciplines. If the number of faculty members are n, they will need about 5n( 1 -y) titles. The factor y is a correction for commonality of titles. A recent compilation of the most important four journals demanded by each faculty member at the University of Ibadan, showed a commonality index of 0.1 or 10%. It seems this formula would give a rather conservative estimate, con- sidering the fact that the average number of titles read on a regular basis could be much higher than 5. It was suggested earlier that the evaluation of the importance ofjournals to the scientists may have been influenced by frustration in actually getting them to use. So also, the average number of journals regularly read may have dropped for the same reason. Furthermore, the number of journals read on a regular basis does not represent all of a scientist’s requirement of periodical literature. However, it is not possible for a university library, especially in a Third World country, to subscribe to all the titles that the scientists may want to consult. Provision has to be made for prompt supply of photocopies of articles from the titles not available in the library.

It seems that the academic scientists in Nigerian universities have had to depend on their own resources more and more each year. In the survey carried out by Bozimo in 1976, 92% of the scientists (including biological and physical scientists) in the oldest six Nigerian universities reported that they had urgent need for information sources which were not immediately available in their libraries.15 In 1986, 82% of the


physical scientists surveyed by this author reported that their research efforts were hampered by lack of information.i6 The 1970s were years of plenty, and there was no difficulty in renewing serials subscription. The 198Os, on the contrary, were a period of severe financial crisis which by 1986 had wrecked most of the university libraries in the country and reduced services to a deplorable state of decay. The libraries were unable to renew their subscription after 1981 and this resulted in a colossal gap in serials holdings up to 1986. Apparently 18% of the scientists surveyed in 1986 were able to access scientific information by a combination of strategies including individual subscription to journals, using occasions of travelling overseas to read the literature, and obtaining current awareness materials and photocopies from colleagues overseas.

The frequency of visiting the university library for whatever reason appears rather low, and seems to reflect considerable alienation of a sizeable proportion of the scientists. If only 55% of the scientists reported visiting the library as often as once a fortnight, it would mean that 45% did not really care whether or not there was a library in their university. In any case, why would they care if the library could not provide them with the materials they wanted? Ironically, 12% of the scientists who seldom did or did not visit the library had convinced themselves that they had all they needed in their personal libraries. The conviction of these scientists is vey unrealistic, and it is difficult to think that they would be so naive. Their view could really be perceived as a silent revolt against the university library system.

The Federal Government of Nigeria and the university authorities definitely have a duty to support scientific enterprise in Nigeria through more financial support for information provision for science. Lack of information for research simply militates against scientific productivity. A study by Michael Gordon actually showed that authors from the Third World countries had their papers rejected far more frequently (57%) than authors from industrially advanced countries (17%); and that they were faulted far more frequently for lack of originality and insignificant references.17 This would suggest that the scientists in the Third World tend to be relatively unaware of developments in their specialities. So, the poor amount of contribution to world science by the Third World could be attributed partly to inadequate scientific information.

CONCLUSION

It needs to be restated here that in order to place their research within the context of world scientific knowledge in appropriate disciplines,


Nigerian university scientists have to show that they are current in the literature and demonstrate that they are making a useful contribution that extends the research front in their speciality. It follows then that the Nigerian scientists require basically the same scientific information sources as their counterparts in the industrially advanced countries. They depend predominantly on journals for scientific information most of which are published in the West. The question of local relevance of research area does not affect this demand, perhaps because there are too few local journals to make any difference. In order to alert themselves to the latest developments in their specialities, they need to screen abstracts and indexes, follow up citations in books and journals, and monitor current publications with the aid of other secondary sources. Most of these have to be imported in hard currency and the onus is with the Federal Government, the university authorities and the university libraries to provide the information needed by the scientists. Whatever strategies the scientists can evolve for grappling with the problem of inadequacy or lack ofinformation and isolation from the world scientific enterprise are no more than a frustrating struggle.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10

11

12

REFERENCES

J. Martyn and B. C. Vickery (1970). The complexity of modelling of information systems. J. Docum. 26, 204-220. I. Goodman (1974). The information requirements of a university scientist. In Information Services in University Libraries. Proc. of a SCONUL Exchange of Experi- ence Seminar on Information Services in University Libraries, pp. 6-14. W. D. Garvey, K. Tomita and P. Woolf (1979). The dynamic scientific-information user. In W. D. Garvey, Communication: the essence of science. Oxford: Perga- mon, pp. 256-279. H. Menzel (1984). The information needs of current scientific research. Library Quarterly 34, 4- 19. F. A. Ehikhamenor (1987). A study ofinformation flow in physical science research in Nigerian universities. Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania, U.S.A.

J. Martyn (1964). Report of an investigation on literature searching by research .scientists. Aslib Research Dept. K. E. Clark (1957). American psychologists: a survey of a growingprofession. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. A. J. Meadows (1974). Communication in Science. London. Butterworths. p. 10 1. F. A. Ehikhamenor (1987). op. cit.

J. D. Bernal ( 1948). Report on the Royal Society ScientiJic Information Conference. Royal Society, 1948. Quoted in A. J. Meadows, op. cit., p. 99. M. W. Martin and R. L. Acknoff (1963). M ana g ement Science, 9: 322. Quoted in A. J. Meadows, op. cit. p. 99. R. R. Shaw (1956). Pilot study on the use of scientz$c literature by scientists. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.


13 A. J. Meadows (1973) op. cit. p. 95. 14 J. Martyn (1965). Survey of information needs of physicists and chemists. J.

Docum. 21, 83-112. 15 D. 0. Bozimo (1983). Nigerian university libraries: a survey of the expressed

library needs of academics as a basis for cooperative planning. J. Librarianship, 15, 123-135.

16 F. A. Ehikhamenor (1988). Perceived state of science in Nigerian universities. Scientometrics, 13, 2255238.

17 M. D. Gordon (1979). Deficiencies of scientific information access and output in less developed countries. ,J, Am. Sot. if. Sci., 30, 340-342.

the use of formal information sources in physical science research in nigerian universities

Documents