Search

Google Scholar and academic library discovery systems are both popular resources among academic users for finding scholarly information. By conducting an online survey with 975 users from more than 20 public research universities across the United States, this study comparatively investigates how and why academic users use these two resources. Results show that the ways participants used both resources were similar, and both were perceived as highly "accessible" and "useful." Academic library discovery systems' perceived "comprehensiveness", "subjective norm", "loyalty", and "intended use" were higher than Google Scholar, while Google Scholar's perceived "ease of use", "system quality", and "satisfaction" were higher than that of academic library discovery systems.

This work explores the ways in which academic librarians specializing in areas related to user services consider the courses they took as part of obtaining their library and information science (LIS) degree prepared them to deal with issues of customer service in their current work. Effective customer service is a central aspect of accomplishing community engagement in academic libraries. This research employs Grounded Theory in order to explore the process through which the librarians' personal experience of learning and applying principles of good customer service that will result in more community engagement. A total of 14 academic librarians working reference and instruction areas were interviewed for this project employing a semi-structured questionnaire. Analysis of the data uncovered perceived weakness in how LIS education prepares students to deal with customer service issues in their professional careers. Service learning is suggested here as a sensible approach to help bridge this gap between education and practice.

This study focuses on the roles of organizational stories among librarians who work at the reference desk. Twenty librarians employed in four academic institutions were interviewed. Most of the organizational stories shared among the participants and their colleagues were rich in tacit knowledge and can be classified according to four main roles: explaining work conditions, warning systems, preparing others, and finding comfort. The results of the study also suggest that the librarians recount the stories to different groups according to the role of the stories.

This research explored the ways in which current liaison librarians feel their LIS programs prepared them for their role, focusing on two research questions: To what extent do librarians working as liaisons in academic institutions in the US and Canada feel their LIS programs prepared them for their liaison role? How much of the preparation of librarians to be liaisons can be attributed to their programs' curriculum, especially in terms of where in the curriculum the liaison role is addressed? Results of a survey of 366 liaisons demonstrate that across a variety of contexts, most respondents feel their programs prepared them to be liaisons, but those who completed the academic library track more often than expected indicated feeling prepared. A majority of participants indicated non-curriculum experiences, such as assistantships, paid employment, and internships in academic libraries, as useful in their preparation, with one exception: those who completed online programs less often than expected indicated non-curricular experiences as useful in preparation for their current liaison role. Overall, the most useful courses cited included specialized courses, reference, instruction, and collection management, suggesting some preparation from core courses, but additional preparation coming from elective courses not always taken by or available to everyone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Google Scholar and academic library discovery systems are both popular resources among academic users for finding scholarly information. By conducting an online survey with 975 users from more than 20 public research universities across the United States, this study comparatively investigates how and why academic users use these two resources. Results show that the ways participants used both resources were similar, and both were perceived as highly accessible and useful. Academic library discovery systems' perceived comprehensiveness, subjective norm, loyalty, and intended use were higher than Google Scholar, while Google Scholar's perceived ease of use, system quality, and satisfaction were higher than that of academic library discovery systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on the roles of organizational stories among librarians who work at the reference desk. Twenty librarians employed in four academic institutions were interviewed. Most of the organizational stories shared among the participants and their colleagues were rich in tacit knowledge and can be classified according to four main roles: explaining work conditions, warning systems, preparing others, and finding comfort. The results of the study also suggest that the librarians recount the stories to different groups according to the role of the stories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]