Diffusion of an innovation: Digital reference service in Carnegie Foundation master's (comprehensive) academic institution libraries

Journal of Academic Librarianship

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 173-187

  White, Marilyn Domas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035343917     PISSN: 00991333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0099-1333(01)00179-3     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. See, for example, Monika Antonelli & Martha Tarlton, "Online Reference Help Desk," in Digital Reference: Models for the New Millennium, edited by Bruce Lankes, John Collins, & Abby Kasowitz (New York: Neal Schuman, 2000), pp. 181-196; Judy Horn, "Evaluating the `Ask a Question' Service at UC Irvine," in Digital Reference, pp.135-152; Susan Lessick, Kathryn Kjaer, & Steve Clancy, "Interactive Reference Service (IRS) at UC Irvine: Expanding Reference Service Beyond the Reference Desk" (paper presented at Association of College and Research Libraries 8th National Conference: Choosing Our Futures, Nashville, Tennessee, April 11-14, 1997). Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/a10.html (Accessed December 5, 2000).
2. See, for example, Monika Antonelli & Martha Tarlton, "Online Reference Help Desk," in Digital Reference: Models for the New Millennium, edited by Bruce Lankes, John Collins, & Abby Kasowitz (New York: Neal Schuman, 2000), pp. 181-196; Judy Horn, "Evaluating the `Ask a Question' Service at UC Irvine," in Digital Reference, pp.135-152; Susan Lessick, Kathryn Kjaer, & Steve Clancy, "Interactive Reference Service (IRS) at UC Irvine: Expanding Reference Service Beyond the Reference Desk" (paper presented at Association of College and Research Libraries 8th National Conference: Choosing Our Futures, Nashville, Tennessee, April 11-14, 1997). Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/a10.html (Accessed December 5, 2000).
3. See, for example, Monika Antonelli & Martha Tarlton, "Online Reference Help Desk," in Digital Reference: Models for the New Millennium, edited by Bruce Lankes, John Collins, & Abby Kasowitz (New York: Neal Schuman, 2000), pp. 181-196; Judy Horn, "Evaluating the `Ask a Question' Service at UC Irvine," in Digital Reference, pp.135-152; Susan Lessick, Kathryn Kjaer, & Steve Clancy, "Interactive Reference Service (IRS) at UC Irvine: Expanding Reference Service Beyond the Reference Desk" (paper presented at Association of College and Research Libraries 8th National Conference: Choosing Our Futures, Nashville, Tennessee, April 11-14, 1997). Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/a10.html (Accessed December 5, 2000).
4. An example of a state-wide survey of academic libraries is: Minna Sellers, "Reference over the Net: New Service or Just a New Line," Colorado Libraries 17 (1998): 6-9.
5. Joseph Janes, David Carter, & Patricia Memmott, "Digital Reference Services in Academic Libraries," Reference & User Services Quarterly 39 (Winter 1999): 145-150.
6. Master I and II levels are categories defined in the Methodology section of: The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994. A new edition of the classification has been published subsequent to the data gathering in this study. The millenial edition issued in November 2000 is available at: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/index.htm (Accessed December 4, 2000). Definitions of the two categories differ slightly in wording but not in content between editions.
7. Lori Goetsch, with assistance of Laura Sowers & Cynthia Todd, Electronic Reference Services (Spec Kit no. 251) (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1999).
8. Janes, Carter and Memmott used a methodology similar to the one in this study, relying on descriptions of the service at library Web sites and a broad-based national survey of academic libraries, They found library Web sites for 147 of the 150 libraries in their sample for a response rate of 98%; the 147 represents a 16% sample of the total of 931 academic libraries in the United States. Goetsch surveyed the total population of 122 ARL libraries with a mail questionnaire and received 78 responses for a 64% response rate. In comparisons made in the analysis, some comparisons are to sub-parts of the sample, for example, those with DRS or those with DRS with question forms. The base for the percentages changes and is noted accordingly.
9. Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1995), synthesizes research on diffusion of all types of innovations, The book emphasizes acceptance by individuals but also includes a chapter on institutional adoption, which, for many technology-based innovations, must precede its acceptance by individuals.
10. Rogers identifies adopter categories based on the time of adoption, which translate to stage of diffusion in the overall time period of adoption, The adopter categories are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards, corresponding roughly to diffusion stages characterized by acceptance by 2.5%, 16%, 50%, 84%, and 100% of the potential adopters (Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 262).
11. This measure looks only at diffusion among institutions, not among end-users of the service, To measure extent of diffusion, it is necessary to know the population of potential adopters and the number of users, not uses, of the system. Although some libraries are maintaining statistics about actual use of the service, they are counting uses, not uses per individual. Even assuming that the service is offered only to registered students, faculty, and staff of an institution and thus making it possible to identify potential adopters of the innovation, it is still not possible to determine the number of end-users actually asking questions because of the nature of the data being maintained.
12. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
13. U.S, National Center for Education Statistics. 1996 IPEDS Academic Library Survey File (Washington, D.C.: 1997). Available: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/data.html#academic (Accessed December 5, 2000). The U.S. Office of Education conducts this survey on a biennial basis but data are not yet available for the 1998 survey which necessitated using the earlier survey; it is the most recent data set for this group of libraries. Data for the 1996 survey have been edited but responses have not been imputed for non-respondents, so the data are considered preliminary still. In this study, if libraries in the sample did not provide data on a particular variable, they are excluded from the particular table and statistical test. Response rates are noted in the table footnotes. For technical notes about this data see: http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/aclib96.html (Accessed December 5, 2000).
14. U.S, National Center for Education Statistics. 1996 IPEDS Academic Library Survey File (Washington, D.C.: 1997). Available: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/data.html#academic (Accessed December 5, 2000). The U.S. Office of Education conducts this survey on a biennial basis but data are not yet available for the 1998 survey which necessitated using the earlier survey; it is the most recent data set for this group of libraries. Data for the 1996 survey have been edited but responses have not been imputed for non-respondents, so the data are considered preliminary still. In this study, if libraries in the sample did not provide data on a particular variable, they are excluded from the particular table and statistical test. Response rates are noted in the table footnotes. For technical notes about this data see: http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/aclib96.html (Accessed December 5, 2000).
15. U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. IPEDS Fall Enrollment Data File: 1996-1997 (Washington, D.C., 1997). Available: http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/ef9697/ (Accessed December 5, 2000).
16. Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1972), pp. 349-350.
17. Ibid., pp. 255-262.
18. In this approach incidents within a category are constantly compared to each other during coding to identify relationships between or among category members. B.G. Glazer & A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (New York: Aldine, 1967); Constance A. Mellon, Naturalistic Inquiry for Library Science: Methods and Applications for Research, Evaluation, and Teaching (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990).
19. In this approach incidents within a category are constantly compared to each other during coding to identify relationships between or among category members. B.G. Glazer & A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (New York: Aldine, 1967); Constance A. Mellon, Naturalistic Inquiry for Library Science: Methods and Applications for Research, Evaluation, and Teaching (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990).
20. Janes, Carter, and Memmott, "Digital Reference Services" (pp. 146-147), reported diffusion data for different levels of academic libraries but the samples for each level are sufficiently small to raise questions about the validity of the findings.
21. Laggards is a term Rogers gives to the last adopter category, They are one standard deviation away from the mean and constitute the last 16% of adopters. Characterizing laggards, Rogers says, they are the most localite in their outlook of all adopter categories; many are near isolates in the social networks of their system. The point of reference for the laggard is the past. Decisions are often made in terms of what has been done previously, and these individuals interact primarily with others who also have relatively traditional values. Laggards tend to be suspicious of innovations and change agents. Their innovation-decision process is relatively lengthy, with adoption and use lagging far behind awareness-knowledge of a new idea. Resistance to innovations ... may be entirely rational from the laggards' viewpoint, as their resources are limited and they must be certain that a new idea will not fail before they can adopt. The laggard's precarious economic position forces the individual to be extremely cautious in adopting innovations (Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 265-266). Rogers is speaking primarily of individuals but institutional laggards probably have similar traits.
22. Ibid., pp. 22-23. When the number of adopters accepting an innovation is plotted on a cumulative frequency basis, the distribution is an S-shaped curve. The S-curve can be steep if the diffusion occurs rapidly or more gradual if the diffusion occurs more slowly.
23. In most cases these libraries responded "yes" or "no" in terms of offering other electronic services, It is highly unlikely that a library offering the service would not have noted it if it responded to the other questions about electronic services.
24. The 1998 survey of academic libraries asked similar questions so, once those data are published, it will be possible to have 1998 as an intermediate point.
25. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 11.
26. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 265.
27. Ibid., pp. 263-264.
28. Ibid., p. 264.
29. Ibid., Chapter 10.
30. The Computer Innovativeness Index (CII) is a composite index reflecting a library's commitment to providing electronic information access services to its primary clientele (students, faculty, and staff), It considers a range of services and different levels of service provision (i.e., within the library, on campus, and off-campus). The higher a library's score, expressed in a percentage, the more innovative it is, the more services it is offering at a maximum level. Beginning with the 1996 academic libraries survey (see reference 11), the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) began to ask libraries a series of questions related to provision of electronic services. NCES asked libraries to respond "yes" or "no" to a series of questions about different electronic services: electronic catalog, electronic indexes and reference tools, full-text periodicals, full-text course reserves, electronic files other than the catalog, Internet access, library reference service, and ILL requests. For each service they were asked to indicate if they offered it: (1) from within the library; (2) from elsewhere on campus; (3) from off campus by primary clientele; and (4) from off campus by others. The libraries answered "yes" or "no" to each of the four questions about a particular service. In addition, NCES asked "yes" or "no" questions about electronic document delivery to patron's account/address and instruction by library staff on the use of Internet resources. These were not in a series since the level is either implicit or indicated in the question. To compute the CII, the following was done. First, all answers to questions about "off campus by others" were eliminated since the emphasis in CII is on services to primary clientele. Second, in addition, the CII excluded the electronic service of providing access to electronic files (not OPAC) since it seemed ambiguous. Third, for each of the other services with the series of questions, the services were weighted from 1 to 3, based on whether the service was offered within the library, from elsewhere on campus, or from off campus. With rare exceptions a library marking "yes" to off campus also indicated "yes" to each preceding question. If it did not, the decision was made to give it the weight of the response immediately preceding the first "no." Fourth, for the last two services, the weighting varied according to question: a "yes" answer to the question about document delivery was weighted a 3 ("no" = 0) since it mentioned delivery to an account/address which could be off-campus; a "yes" ("no" = 0) answer to the question about staff instruction was weighted a 2 since it could be on-campus. If a library offered all services at the maximum level, it would have a score of 20, which can be translated into a percentage with 20 equaling 100%. The scores reported in Table 2 are reported in percentages. As noted earlier, the higher the score or percentage, the more innovative the library is.
31. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 379; Janes, Carter, & Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," pp. 146-147.
32. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 379; Janes, Carter, & Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," pp. 146-147.
33. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, chap. 6. Other perceived attributes that affect the rate of adoption are: complexity, trialability, and observability. Adoption should occur more quickly for innovations that are less complex, more trialable, and more observable.
34. Ibid., p. 212.
35. Ibid., p. 224.
36. Janes, Carter, & Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," pp. 146-147.
37. AskA+ Locator. Available: http://www.vrd.org/locator/subject.html (Accessed December 5, 2000).
38. Janes, Carter, & Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," p. 147.
39. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 11.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Janes, Carter, and Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," pp. 147-148.
43. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 12.
44. This particular library included examples of such questions; all called for brief, factual responses.
45. Janes, Carter, and Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," p. 148.
46. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 12.
47. Pitsco's Ask an Expert. Available: http://www.askanexpert.com/ (Accessed December 5, 2000).
48. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 12.
49. Janes, Carter, and Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," p. 147.
50. See reviews in: Marilyn Domas White, ed. Analyzing Electronic Question/Answer Services: Framework and Evaluations of Selected Services, CLIS Technical Report no. 99-02 (College Park, MD.: College of Library and Information Services, University of Maryland, 1999) (ED 433019). Available: http://www.clis.umd.edu/research/reports/99/TR9902.PDF (Accessed December 5, 2000).
51. Ibid.
52. See, for example, Kathleen M. Folger, "The Virtual Librarian: Using Desktop Videoconferencing to Provide Interactive Reference Assistance" (paper presented at Association of College and Research Libraries 8th National Conference: Choosing Our Futures, Nashville, Tennessee, April 11-14, 1997). Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/a09.html (Accessed September 25, 2000); Saundra Lipton, "Click on Wizard Service for help: Using Help Desk Software for Real-time Reference," in Digital Reference, pp. 207-218; Sam Stormont, "Collaborative Software for Real-time Reference" (paper presented at the Digital Reference Conference, Cambridge, MA, October, 1999); Ruth A. Pagell, "The Virtual Reference Librarian: Using Desktop Videoconferencing for Distance Reference," Electronic Library 14 (February 1996): 21-26.
53. See, for example, Kathleen M. Folger, "The Virtual Librarian: Using Desktop Videoconferencing to Provide Interactive Reference Assistance" (paper presented at Association of College and Research Libraries 8th National Conference: Choosing Our Futures, Nashville, Tennessee, April 11-14, 1997). Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/a09.html (Accessed September 25, 2000); Saundra Lipton, "Click on Wizard Service for help: Using Help Desk Software for Real-time Reference," in Digital Reference, pp. 207-218; Sam Stormont, "Collaborative Software for Real-time Reference" (paper presented at the Digital Reference Conference, Cambridge, MA, October, 1999); Ruth A. Pagell, "The Virtual Reference Librarian: Using Desktop Videoconferencing for Distance Reference," Electronic Library 14 (February 1996): 21-26.
54. See, for example, Kathleen M. Folger, "The Virtual Librarian: Using Desktop Videoconferencing to Provide Interactive Reference Assistance" (paper presented at Association of College and Research Libraries 8th National Conference: Choosing Our Futures, Nashville, Tennessee, April 11-14, 1997). Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/a09.html (Accessed September 25, 2000); Saundra Lipton, "Click on Wizard Service for help: Using Help Desk Software for Real-time Reference," in Digital Reference, pp. 207-218; Sam Stormont, "Collaborative Software for Real-time Reference" (paper presented at the Digital Reference Conference, Cambridge, MA, October, 1999); Ruth A. Pagell, "The Virtual Reference Librarian: Using Desktop Videoconferencing for Distance Reference," Electronic Library 14 (February 1996): 21-26.
55. See, for example, Kathleen M. Folger, "The Virtual Librarian: Using Desktop Videoconferencing to Provide Interactive Reference Assistance" (paper presented at Association of College and Research Libraries 8th National Conference: Choosing Our Futures, Nashville, Tennessee, April 11-14, 1997). Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/a09.html (Accessed September 25, 2000); Saundra Lipton, "Click on Wizard Service for help: Using Help Desk Software for Real-time Reference," in Digital Reference, pp. 207-218; Sam Stormont, "Collaborative Software for Real-time Reference" (paper presented at the Digital Reference Conference, Cambridge, MA, October, 1999); Ruth A. Pagell, "The Virtual Reference Librarian: Using Desktop Videoconferencing for Distance Reference," Electronic Library 14 (February 1996): 21-26.
56. Of the 28 libraries using question forms, 17 (27% of all DRS libraries) also allowed for submitting the question via e-mail to accommodate users whose browsers did not allow for forms. Janes, Carter, and Memmott, "Digital Reference," found only 12.5% of the libraries offered both types of access.
57. Janes, Carter, & Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," pp. 147-148.
58. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 11.
59. Janes, Carter, and Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," (p. 148) reported number and proportion of libraries with this feature; these were re-computed as a percentage of all libraries with DRS question forms for comparison.
60. Janes, Carter, & Memmott, "Digital Reference Services," pp.147-148.
61. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 14.
62. Ellen D. Sutton & Leslie Edmonds Holt, "The Reference Interview," in Reference and Information Services, An Introduction, 2d ed., edited by Richard E. Bopp & Linda C. Smith (Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1995), p. 41.
63. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 16.
64. White, Analyzing Electronic Question/Answer Services.
65. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 14.
66. This figure is derived from ARL library responses about the length of time for operation of DRS, As reported, some libraries indicated over five years in operation as of July 1999. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 11. Santa Monica Public Library indicated that its e-mail referencebegan as early as 1989, with the inauguration of the Public Electronic Network (PEN). Nancy O'Neill, "E-mail Reference Service in the Public Library: A Virtual Necessity," Public Libraries 38 (1999): 302-303.
67. This figure is derived from ARL library responses about the length of time for operation of DRS, As reported, some libraries indicated over five years in operation as of July 1999. Goetsch, Electronic Reference, p. 11. Santa Monica Public Library indicated that its e-mail referencebegan as early as 1989, with the inauguration of the Public Electronic Network (PEN). Nancy O'Neill, "E-mail Reference Service in the Public Library: A Virtual Necessity," Public Libraries 38 (1999): 302-303.
68. U.S, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 IPEDS Academic.
69. See, for example: Colleen Cook & Bruce Thompson, "Reliability and Validity of SERVQUAL Scores Used to Evaluate Perceptions of Library Service Quality," Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 248-258 (2000).; Danuta Nitecki & Peter Hernon, "Measuring Service Quality at Yale University's Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (2000): 259-73; Marilyn Domas White, "Measuring Service Quality in Libraries," in Advances in Library Administration and Organization, edited by Delmus E. Williams & Edward D. Garten (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997), pp. 1-35.
70. See, for example: Colleen Cook & Bruce Thompson, "Reliability and Validity of SERVQUAL Scores Used to Evaluate Perceptions of Library Service Quality," Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 248-258 (2000).; Danuta Nitecki & Peter Hernon, "Measuring Service Quality at Yale University's Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (2000): 259-73; Marilyn Domas White, "Measuring Service Quality in Libraries," in Advances in Library Administration and Organization, edited by Delmus E. Williams & Edward D. Garten (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997), pp. 1-35.
71. See, for example: Colleen Cook & Bruce Thompson, "Reliability and Validity of SERVQUAL Scores Used to Evaluate Perceptions of Library Service Quality," Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 248-258 (2000).; Danuta Nitecki & Peter Hernon, "Measuring Service Quality at Yale University's Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (2000): 259-73; Marilyn Domas White, "Measuring Service Quality in Libraries," in Advances in Library Administration and Organization, edited by Delmus E. Williams & Edward D. Garten (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997), pp. 1-35.
72. See Marilyn Domas White, "Introduction and Analytical Framework," in Analyzing Electronic Question/Answer Services, pp. 1-8. This chapter develops an analytical framework based on systems analysis for evaluating and establishing DRS in libraries and other organizations.