the use of electronic resources in libraries: an essential

Transkrypt

Seria III: ePublikacje Instytutu INiB UJ. Red. Maria Kocójowa
Nr 7 2010: Biblioteki, informacja, książka: interdyscyplinarne badania i praktyka w XXI wieku
Chérifa Boukacem Zeghmouri*
Université Charles-de-Gaulle Lille 3
GERIICO
THE USE OF ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN LIBRARIES:
AN ESSENTIAL INTERDISCIPLINARY OUTLOOK
[WYKORZYSTANIE ŹRÓDEŁ ELEKTRONICZNYCH W BIBLIOTEKACH:
UJĘCIE INTERDYSCYPLINARNE]
Abstract: The article seeks to retrace the methodological journey of a nationwide French research project EPEF
focused on the use of electronic journals in a university setting. Seeing the heterogeneity of the population
of teaching researchers who adhere to the dematerialized systems of information handling available in academic
libraries, the approach adopted within the EPEF project has been decidedly multidisciplinary: combining information science with sociology, statistics and economics. However, the methodological work done for this project –
from 2006 to 2009 – and the plurality of the results obtained has led us to expand our multidisciplinary goal.
In order to reach an exhaustive analysis capable of explaining the different logics behind the use of electronic
journals, we have included other disciplines: cognitive psychology, marketing, and history of science.
ELECTRONIC JOURNALS – FRANCE – INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH – USAGE
Abstrakt: Przedstawiono założenia metodologiczne i etapy realizacji ogólnokrajowego francuskiego projektu naukowego EPEF, którego celem była ocena wykorzystania elektronicznych czasopism w środowisku akademickim.
Z uwagi na wewnętrzne dziedzinowe zróżnicowanie społeczności naukowców-dydaktyków, którzy korzystają
z systemów zdalnego udostępniania informacji naukowej oferowanych przez francuskie biblioteki akademickie,
w projekcie przyjęto podejście interdyscyplinarne, łączące naukę o informacji z socjologią, statystyką i ekonomią.
Zakres towarzyszącej projektowi refleksji metodologicznej i różnorodność wyników, które uzyskano w czasie jego
trwania, tj. w latach 2006–2009, skłoniły jednak zespół wykonawczy do dalszego poszerzenia perspektywy inter*
CHÉRIFA BOUKACEM ZEGHMOURI, PhD; Senior Lecturer in UFR IDIST [Department of Information,
Documentation, Scientific and Technical Information], Université Charles-de-Gaulle Lille 3, France; member of Research
Group GERIICO (Groupe d’Etudes et de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Information et Communication, Team for
Interdisciplinary Studies and Research in INFOCOM Sciences); coordinator of the Master ICD (Information –
Communication – Documentation), Université Lille 3; Director of the French national research project EPEF. Two the most
important publications: (2009) Évaluation des périodiques électroniques par l’usage: STM et SHS en terrain académique
français [E-Journal’s Usage Assessment: Technical and Medical Sciences versus Humanities in French Academic Settings],
doc. online [In:] International Conference „New Media for a New World”, Bahrain, 7th–9th April 2009.
http://www.nmconf.uob.edu.bh/download/french_article/010.pdf; (2008) La consultation des périodiques électroniques en
bibliothèque universitaire: état des lieux [Consultation of e-Journals in Academic Libraries: Current Situation]. „Bulletin
des Bibliothèques de France” T. 53, N° 3, p. 48–60 [co-author: R. Kamga]. E-mail: [email protected]
[Dr CHÉRIFA BOUKACEM ZEGHMOURI, UFR IDIST [Instytut Informacji Naukowo-Technicznej i Dokumentacji],
Université Charles-de-Gaulle Lille 3, Francja; członkini GERIICO – Groupe d’Etudes et de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en
Information et Communication [Grupa Interdyscyplinarnych Badań w Dziedzinie Nauk o Informacji i Komunikacji];
koordynator studiów II stopnia Master ICD (Informacja – Komunikacja – Dokumentalistyka) w Université Lille 3; dyrektor
ogólnokrajowego francuskiego projektu naukowego EPEF. Dwie najważniejsze publikacje: (2009) Évaluation des
périodiques électroniques par l’usage: STM et SHS en terrain académique français [Ocena praktyk wykorzystania eczasopism przez naukowców francuskich reprezentujących odpowiednio nauki techniczne i medyczne oraz humanistyczne],
dok. elektr. [In:] International Conference „New Media for a New World”, Bahrain, 7th–9th April 2009 [Międzynarodowa
Konferencja „Nowe technologie dla nowego świata”, Bahrajn, 7–9 kwietnia 2009 r.]. http://www.nmconf.
uob.edu.bh/download/french_article/010.pdf; (2008) La consultation des périodiques électroniques en bibliothèque
universitaire: état des lieux [Wykorzystanie e-czasopism w bibliotekach akademickich: stan obecny]. „Bulletin des
Bibliothèques de France” T. 53, N° 3, p. 48–60 [współaut.: R. Kamga]. E-mail: [email protected]]
317
dyscyplinarnej. Uznano zatem, że dla dokonania wyczerpującej analizy motywacji stojących za poszczególnymi
praktykami wykorzystania e-czasopism niezbędne było uwzględnienie także psychologii kognitywnej, marketingu
i historii nauki.
BADANIA INTERDYSCYPLINARNE – E-CZASOPISMA – FRANCJA – WYKORZYSTANIE
*
*
*
INTRODUCTION
The issue of interdisciplinarity is clearly traceable to the research and science fields. Often quoted, encouraged, and practiced, it is a familiar question. However, this issue of interdisciplinarity is not always fully embraced. When the call for papers for the16th International Conference of the JU Institute of Information and Library Science was published, we were writing concluding reports for an interdisciplinary research project carried
out under the aegis of the French National Agency of Research ANR, called EPEF, which stands for Evaluation
des périodiques électroniques dans le réseau universitaire français (Assessment of e-journals’ usage within
French universitary network). We therefore wanted, with this article, to take the opportunity to question and revisit our own interdisciplinary practice.
We would like to retrace the methodological path EPEF took as an interdisciplinary research project focusing on the usage of electronic journals in academic settings. When observing the trend of dematerialized knowledge, available from afar in academic libraries, for a population of teaching researchers, the approach had been
decidedly interdisciplinary: combining information science with sociology, statistics and economics. However,
the nature of the work and the plurality of the results obtained led us to borrow from yet other fields to arrive to
a larger and more accurate interpretation of the studied phenomenon. But before going further, we must first
clarify what we mean by “interdisciplinarity”.
The definition we are submitting has sprung from our practice of interdisciplinarity within the context of the
project EPEF. The definition was created for a research project branded as an Information and Communication
Science (SIC) project, but composed of researchers in different fields, in SIC, but also in sociology, economics
and statistics. The goal was to gather concepts and methods from different scientific backgrounds to examine
a shared question. This led to many discussions, interactions and exchanges between researchers, and between
the different research fields. If we consider definitions offered by some authors, interdisciplinarity is not a juxtaposition of points of view (pluridisciplinarity) nor is it a transversal question common to all fields (transdisciplinarity) [Vinck 2000, p.61]. The interdisciplinarity we have worked on has led us to bring our complementary
points of view and make them converge into a synthesis. It is therefore with this in mind that we have practiced
interdisciplinarity.
The reader should not misunderstand us. Our interdisciplinary experience has no epistemological base. We
started our work around a common theme, which was the use of electronic journals. From there, recurring meetings and working sessions were the opportunity for confrontation and dialogue. This is what we want to share in
this article.
318
INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN THE RESEARCH FIELD
The topic of interdisciplinarity has been of special interest since the first publications by Derek J. de Solla
Price in the 1960’s. Price underlined how “Big Science” led to hyper specialization, since “Big Science” was of
a new scale and depended on significant funding, working tools for research and experimentation, and international collaboration [Price 1986; from the 1st ed. 1963]. Research fields had previously been divided following
the positivist science tradition, but “Big Science” led to further subject ramifications. Certain rivalries between
research fields were born, in a quest for legitimacy.
Amidst these rivalries, the pertinence of the results of Big Science were put into question. Since administrators and politicians gave significant funding to this science, it was crucial to assess its results. The way the results were measured was by assessing their social use: the capacity for the results to be understood, used by society, in a broad understanding.
Interdisciplinarity therefore became a means to make up for research analysis which had become too narrow. But interdisciplinarity also complemented specific research since it allowed for specialized scientific knowledge while being comprehensible to an evolving society. Interdisciplinarity is, in fact, at the heart of scientific
popularization, crucial to any form of knowledge, and of course reduces the rivalry between research fields,
since the different fields work together. This is viewed positively by science administrators who “rage against
the multiplicity of scientific tribes” [Vinck 2002, p.208].
In regards to education, the work of Price is viewed positively by politicians who want intellectuals to look
closely at the nature and content of educational curriculums. The works of Edgar Morin in France can also be
seen as a response to such a preoccupation and political agenda. The aim is clearly to force specialists to confront their knowledge with each other, as Bertrand Calenge [Calenge 2002, p.9] reminds us. It is considered to be
their civil responsibility.
In the 1980s, interdisciplinarity was increasingly valued. This can be explained by the fact that positivist
epistemology was being replaced by constructivist epistemology [Le Moigne 2007, p. 41]. This shift translated
in institutional organizations, but also in the research funding policies. Starting from the 1980s, interdisciplinary
research was officially sanctioned and specific funds were made available. Concerning thematic projects (as in
the ANR projects in France, or in Europe), interdisciplinarity has since been explicitly required and an assurance
of original thinking. Teaching researchers have also caught on to this aspect of the work. They answer the interdisciplinary call with their bibliographical references, methodologies and choice of researchers for projects. We
can say that the constantly augmenting need for resources has speeded up the process of interconnected knowledge obtained through interdisciplinarity. Therefore, scientific progress might come about at the margin of
a particular scientific field [Vinck 2002, p.57]. From these years of more or less organized interdisciplinary practice, there have been increasing connections made between fundamental science and applied science, and between natural science and social science. The ultimate goal is to have the largest view of a particular phenomenon or of a particular object of study in order to be scientifically original and creative.
Another more recent trend will play in favor of interdisciplinarity: Open Access. Surprisingly, this trend has
not yet been brought up by literature. Information circulates more easily thanks to the new alternative models of
information production. The inter-relatedness of open thematic and/or institutional archives is a stimulant to
people’s curiosity, their use of the material and the “permeability” of knowledge.
319
To take an idea defended by M. Gibbons [Gibbons 1994, p.36], the making of scientific knowledge has gone
from a mono-disciplinary science with hierarchies and in isolation from society, to a science which is articulated
with society, leading to interdisciplinary practices and new forms of organization. Taking this statement into
account, we can find an echo to these words when analyzing the failure of the recent Copenhagen summit. The
lack of communication between researchers in different fields may have contributed to the summit’s failure.
SIC, FAVORABLE GROUND FOR INTERDISCIPLINARITY
Grouped as one university section in France (71rst), The Information Science and Communication Sciences
are commonly referenced under the French acronym SIC.
The history and emergence of SIC in France has interdisciplinarity at its heart [Boure 2002, p.10]. To illustrate this, we can borrow Jacques Perrault’s analogy, identifying SIC as “The Raft of the Medusa”, from Gericault. More concretely, the founders of SIC were not SIC researchers at first since the field and the university
section did not yet exist. The SIC founders were teaching researchers coming from diverse academic backgrounds who regrouped around common topics, feeling that their original research fields lacked some scientific
and epistemological structures to tackle certain questions. This amounts to say that, from the beginnings of SIC,
interdisciplinarity has been a practice completely integrated to the dynamics of the field. The founding SIC researchers worked and struggled to create a research field where it would be possible to engage in critical thinking around a particular topic. Yves Le Coadic’s graph [Le Coadic 2004, p.25), almost anecdotal, shows Information Science as a living cell in which exterior germs – other research fields – create outgrowths: symptoms of the
interdisciplinarity inherent to SIC.
Far from being hostile to interdisciplinarity, SIC recognizes it as a structuring component. The constructive
confrontation between research fields is common in SIC and allows for constant dialogue. Some people may call
such communication a “cacophony”, for we mustn’t minimize the challenges of such an academic undertaking.
The nuanced and varied scientific languages and different conceptual horizons are not always easy to combine.
Furthermore, there are few interdisciplinary journals in which to publish. It is, in the end, always the topic of
study which is at the center of the mobilized effort.
More than ever, the arrival of the internet and new information technologies has exacerbated the interdisciplinary dimension of SIC, first between Information Sciences and Communication Sciences – as the works of G.
Gallezot demonstrate [Gallezot 2006] – but also between SIC and other research areas. For it is not possible to
reduce technical mediation devices simply to information communication. One must take into account social,
cognitive and economic factors. The SIC research topics, often technological, are favorable to interdisciplinarity,
whether the research is focused on describing the phenomenon or on conceptualizing it.
EXPERIMENTING (WITH) INTERDISCIPLINARITY: THE EPEF PROJECT
Since the EPEF project research question – the usage of academic journals within a university setting - is at
the crossroads of technical, social and economic fields, an interdisciplinary approach was key. Therefore, the
methodology for the project was conceived with interdisciplinarity in mind.
320
Using descriptive statistics
When it comes to analyzing usage, electronic journals benefit from the network – the internet – since the
network itself keeps a record of the user’s activity on the site. Every click on a publisher’s website is recorded in
a database and becomes quantitative data. This data, linked to the number of recorded clicks, the type of clicks,
where they come from, where they have gone, the length during a session… will constitute a statistical database.
It is then possible to use this accumulated data to know more about the usage of electronic resources by the users
as a whole, and not merely by a sample of users. The team of the EPEF project was able to use these statistical
resources transmitted by the Couperin consortium, who in turn received the data directly from the publishers.
The statistical work involved organizing and understanding the data in order to use it within the research.
Despite the headway done by the Counter norm, the data was not fully harmonized and therefore could not be
compared. Faced with the richness and multiplicity of the data, descriptive statistics were needed to create a rational structure to order and exploit the raw numbers. The SIC point of view was associated to this undertaking,
specifically when it came to the association of variables, which the result in fine allows one to have a model of
practices such as the association of the average time of a session with the number of sessions a month, or the
number of searches associated with the number of sessions.
Turning to a social analysis of usage
When further analyzing usage, it was important to listen directly to the users. The descriptive statistics gave
precious information concerning the volume of downloads and therefore gave insight on effective usage. Those
statistics also gave us information on the ways the publisher’s online platforms were used: people navigating on
them rather than doing searches, preferences for certain types of research, preferring certain flash alert services,
etc. However, we were not able to understand why such preferences were recorded. More precisely, the social
aspect of electronic journal usage was missing, that is its inscription in social and academic contexts.
We therefore organized interviews with a panel of teaching researchers, taking into account their field of
study, their status, their personal take on the academic and research world, etc. This aspect of the methodological
work was conducted in close collaboration with the team’s sociologist, and benefited from the SIC’s outlook.
Such a dialogue between the informational and social approaches resulted in a fuller usage analysis. From the
start, when structuring the interview outline, we focused on the seeking behaviors in order to further understand
the usages that stemmed from those habits. Furthermore, in keeping with Le Coadic information cycle graph [Le
Coadic, 2004, p.12], this outline does not isolate the teaching researcher’s usage of electronic journals from
his/her scientific publications and communications. When analyzing these interviews, one can take into account
an enlarged context, more global, allowing for more nuances in the ways users are established and the challenges
inherent to this establishment.
Turning to an econometrics analysis
Studying the usage of academic electronic resources which charge for their services is not unlike the scientific publishing market and its economic model. The EPEF project has had the ambition to give itself the possibility of identifying the economic repercussions of usage. Econometrics, by means of an inferential statistical
analysis, has been the method used to identify the economic impact of the usage of electronic journals. This part
of the work could be done thanks to the expertise of the economist specialized in econometrics in the EPEF
team. In order to set up the desired econometric approach, we had to associate different data together: consulta-
321
tion data, data related to the cost of resources, data concerning the specific universities with which the users (the
teaching researchers) were affiliated. The respective points of view of the SIC and the librarianship were markers in this journey. Many discussions arose in a quest to specify the meaning behind each piece of data.
INTERDISCIPLINARITY: A NECESSITY
The EPEF project has led to many results which we have published and/or presented in national and international settings. We invite the interested reader to consult this article’s bibliography as well the official website
for the project. However, in the following section, we find it important to give a concise presentation of the most
significant results discovered by EPEF, since the interdisciplinary analysis is the focus of this article.
Description of innovative results
The EPEF project has demonstrated the new characteristics of the information practices of teaching researchers. These new habits and practices are new ways of working, stemming from an original context where
a considerable amount of electronic resources is accessible via different channels, allowing for increased research possibilities. These consultation practices also show to what extent electronic journals are integrated in
the daily users seeking behaviors.
These characteristics are due to the Internet, since users transpose their web navigation activities on information search tools, and particularly on publisher’s online platforms. These platforms welcome this phenomenon
by offering attractive functionality. Navigation has therefore become a structuring research practice since it is
has become a transversal basis on which other more specific search habits attach themselves, with different intentions and objectives. Users assess the efficiency of the strategy – a new way of functioning – based on the
amount of information encountered throughout their surfing and on the plurality of the sites they visit (academic,
professional, commercial, non-profit,…) and the tasks they simultaneously accomplish. This allows them to feel
a sense of efficiency regarding their searches.
The establishment of an interdisciplinary analysis
The methodology and analysis adopted by EPEF has always aimed at being interdisciplinary and has grown
with the richness and plurality of the results. In the following paragraphs, we want to specify the contribution
made by each field associated to EPEF.
•
Including statistics in the EPEF study allowed us to further uncover the methodological problems linked
to counting the data associated with search habits. The confrontation between the informational definition of certain words and their statistical definition, (for example sessions) relative to certain habits allowed us to have a more critical outlook on the Counter code of good practice.
•
Including sociology in the EPEF study allowed us to situate the informational practices observed within
a larger context. Beyond the professional context of teaching and research, the recorded new ways of
searching show how the internet has modified our relationship to information. Therefore, the user’s individual sphere of research blurs with the more collective and social sphere of research, each sphere following its own logic.
•
Including cognitive psychology in the EPEF study allowed us to underline the importance of mental activity, when it is subject to new learning, and which then translates in habits [Denecker 2006]. In order
322
to better understand the underlying logic inherent to the multitude of observed habits and practices, it
was important for us to understand what parts memory and perception play in a process similar to that
of decision-making, within the context of a navigation session. This enriching confrontation has furthered the link between the notion of learning and seeking behavior, a link which is essential to Information Literacy, another crucial element for libraries.
•
Including marketing in the EPEF study has allowed us to apprehend the evolving model of the academic
library. We were able to observe the seeking behaviors and the logics of usages as well as the added
services the libraries have put into place in order to face the challenges of the evolving model. It is interesting to see, from a marketing point of view, how the types and numbers of services offered mirror
the redefinition strategies.
•
Briefly introducing ergonomics in the EPEF study has mainly allowed us to measure how usage can be
influenced, even determined by the ergonomics of a webpage.
•
Including history of science in the EPEF study has allowed us to set the way researchers “made science”
in a larger dynamic comprising technological, industrial and society mutations. This has led us to lean
towards thinking of an evolution of practices rather than talking about a revolution. Furthermore, we
were able to put our findings into perspective when observing the trends of other (particularly anglosaxon) countries.
•
Including economics in the EPEF study, late in the process, has allowed us to compare the reality of
usage with the pertinence of economic models put forward by publishers to sell their publications. Having summoned common notions but with differing representations, this confrontation of thought allowed us to enrich our analysis by giving this SIC research project an added edge when studying usages. The economic component questioned in a surprising way how libraries were conducting their mediation in a digital and globalised environment.
CONCLUSION
The methodological work undertaken throughout EPEF and the plurality of the results obtained led the initial interdisciplinary objective to be considerably enlarged. The object of study and the underlying research question justified this change. And despite the difficulty of the task, many benefits come from the fertile ground and
the condensed analysis EPEF is able to bring to the knowledge linked to the usages of electronic journals in university settings. Such knowledge embraces challenges and questions which one would have not known existed
by staying in the narrowness of one particular research field.
Two main lessons emerge from this experiment. The first lesson lies in the fact that interdisciplinarity is
a practice which requires endurance and which can only be undertaken with patience and a true desire to learn.
The second lesson teaches us that interdisciplinarity can exist in the active practice of research and science. The
epistemological prerequisite, sometimes seen as an insurmountable barrier, can shift inside the very practice of
interdisciplinarity to better grow.
323
REFERENCES
Boure, R. (2002). Les origines des sciences de l’information et de la communication: regards croisés. Lille: Presses
Universitaires du Septentrion, 179 p.
Calenge, B. (2002). A la recherche de l’interdisciplinarité. Bulletin des Bibliothèques de France 47(4), p. 5–13.
Denecker, C.; E. Kolmayer (2006). Eléments de psychologie cognitive pour les sciences de l’information. Villeurbanne:
Presses de l’Enssib, 334 p. (Les cahiers de l’Enssib).
Gallezot, G.; E. Boutin; P. Dumas (2006) Les sciences de l’information ET de la communication: une problématique du
« et ». 15ème Congrès de la SFSIC, Bordeaux, Mai 2006.
Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications, 179 p.
Le Coadic, Y. (2004). La science de l’Information. Paris: PUF, 127 p.
Le Moigne, J.-L. (2007). Les épistémologies constructivistes. Paris: PUF, 125 p.
Perriault, J. (2008). La logique de l’usage: essai sur les machines à communiquer. Paris: L’Harmattan, 253 p.
Price, de Solla D.J. (1986). Little Science, Big Science…and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press, 301 p.
Rowlands, I. et al. (2008). The Google Generation: the Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future. Asleeb
proceedings: new information perspectives 60(4), p. 290–310.
Vinck, D. (2004). Pratiques de l’interdisciplinarité: mutation des sciences, de l’industrie et de l’enseignement. Grenoble:
PUG, 221 p.
324

the use of electronic resources in libraries: an essential

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

INFORMATION LITERACY AS A RESOURCE FOR CITIZENSHIP

combining web analytics and computational linguistics to enhance

interdisciplinary research carried out in danish academic libraries

could the application of comparative method within a single case

Characteristics and Applications of Silicon Carbide Power Devices