Library & Information Science Research 33 (2011) 63–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Library & Information Science Research

Users' perceptions of university library websites: A unifying view Yong-Mi Kim
School of Library and Information Studies, University of Oklahoma, Schusterman Center, 4502 East 41st St., Tulsa, OK 74135-2553, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 10 December 2010

a b s t r a c t
University libraries have invested a large amount of resources into digitizing information for the Web, yet scholars and practitioners question the value of this investment due to a lack of use of university library website resources (ULWR). Addressing this concern, researchers have investigated the use of ULWR and offered insights into the problem. However, studies have employed a single perspective rather than a comprehensive approach; as a result, the findings shed light on only part of the use issue. Also, existing studies have consistently reported that users with different academic roles have distinct usage patterns of ULWR and information sources. But they have not considered a wide range of users or systematically investigated such differences. This study examines these differences. This study examines (a) the user perspective, derived from technology adoption literature; (b) the website design perspective, embedded in human computer interaction literature; and (c) the library service quality perspective, based on information science literature. The second area is addressed by surveying a wide range of users, categorizing them based on their academic role differences, and then comparing their use of ULWR and information sources, thereby highlighting distinctive usage patterns. Research based on the responses of 315 participants shows that while users favorably rated factors derived from the perspectives of user and library service qualities for ULWR use, they perceived university library websites as somewhat difficult to use. Also, distinct user patterns are observed in this dataset.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
One major area of applied library and information science (LIS) research is the systematic investigation of library website users. These studies can be valuable in assisting information managers, website designers, and other partners in library service provision (Hemminger, Lu, Vaughan, & Adams, 2007). The intersection between users and library resources in general has been studied from a number of different perspectives, one of which is the nature of the user. Researchers have reported that users are receptive to good advice from librarians (Haglund & Olsson, 2008), and this is especially true for new users (Bostick, 1992). Because new users, such as undergraduate students, are unfamiliar with library settings, they are likely to experience library anxiety (Bostick, 1992; Fister, Gilbert, & Fry, 2008; Mellon, 1986). They therefore often need substantial help when using library resources. On the other hand, faculty members and doctoral students are experienced, self-sufficient library users who have searching skills and domain knowledge that help them

formulate search terms to retrieve customized information (Linde & Bergstrom, 1988; Marchionini, Dwiggins, Katz, & Lin, 1993; Meadow, Wang, & Yuan, 1995; Wildemuth, 2004). These findings suggest that different usage patterns exist across different user groups.

E-mail address: [email protected]
0740-8188/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2010.04.007

Information managers face new challenges now because users are required to have a certain level of technical skill to use university library website resources (ULWR). Users who perceive the website as difficult to use may resist using ULWR (Nov & Ye, 2009). As university libraries increasingly deliver information online, technical skills have been one of the required qualifications for librarians to fulfill their roles (Adkins & Esser, 2004; Heinrichs & Lim, 2009). Additionally, in order to better serve patrons, university libraries increasingly adopt emerging technologies such as Library 2.0 functionalities (Kim & Abbas, 2010). It is therefore timely to explore how such technologies affect the use of ULWR.

2. Problem statement
Because university libraries have invested resources into building digital and electronic libraries and have increasingly delivered information via library websites, it is important to ask how the use of ULWR could be enhanced (Hong, Thong, Wong, & Tam, 2001-2002; Hsieh-Yee, 1996; Thomsett-Scott & May, 2009). Research in this area has been conducted in a piecemeal manner rather than in a holistic or comprehensive one. This poses three problems.

First, investigations of ULWR usage have mainly been explored from three independent perspectives: the user perspective, which is derived from the technology adoption model (Heinrichs, Lim, Lim, & Spangenberg, 2007; Kim, 2008; Kim, 2010; Li, 2009); the website design perspective, which is drawn from human computer interaction

64

Y.-M. Kim / Library & Information Science Research 33 (2011) 63–72

literature ( Chao, 2002; Yen, Hu, & Wang, 2007); and the library service quality perspective, which is embedded in information science literature (Adkins & Esser, 2004; Graham, 2003; Xie, 2006). These three streams of research have enhanced understanding of ULWR usage on their own, but have not resulted in a good understanding of how these perspectives can be integrated and compared within a single research context. Furthermore, in the information science field, discussions of library quality, including librarians' competency, have emerged, but have not been efficiently integrated into studies of ULWR use. In addition, university libraries have recently adopted new capabilities, such as Library 2.0 features, that can enable users to customize and simplify website complexity. These three perspectives, including this new set of technological tools, need to be integrated into library usage studies and evaluated.

The second problem is that research samples have been problematic in terms of generalizing the findings to a wide range of users. More specifically, research findings are reported based on a single user group (e.g., either undergraduate students or master's students) or a combination of undergraduate and master's students, while doctoral students and faculty members, the heaviest users of ULWR, are overlooked. A user whose academic role consists mainly of research and teaching is likely to consume more library resources. In fact, there is a stream of research on the relationship between academic tasks and technology use that shows that different groups use digital collections for varying reasons (Kim, 2008; Li, 2009; Li & Belkin, 2008; Lin, Chan, & Wei, 2006; Tombros, Ruthven, & Jose, 2005). In spite of these role differences, research on ULWR has not surveyed diverse user groups, considered role differences, or investigated such roles in relation to online usage patterns.

Third, research shows that different user groups seek out
information from different information sources apart than university library websites, such as printed materials (Finn & Johnston, 2004) or commercial websites (Scoyoc & Cason, 2006). Nonetheless, this issue has not been not been investigated along with ULWR.

3. Literature review
3.1. Users' academic roles and library usage
Library resource usage patterns are different across groups
because users have distinct academic roles that require various levels of information seeking and consumption (Janes, 1994; Spink,
Greisdorf, & Bateman, 1998). Compared to undergraduate and
master's students, doctoral students and faculty members are more likely to use library resources in order to perform tasks such as research and teaching (Borgman et al., 2005). This argument is supported by Vakkari's (2008) finding that the availability of digital resources increased the number of scholarly publications produced by doctoral students (Vakkari, 2008). It is expected that doctoral students and faculty members are more likely to use library resources due to role relevancy (Hong et al., 2001–2002; Kim, 2008; Nov & Ye, 2008; Park, Roman, Lee, & Chung, 2009). Also, doctoral students and faculty members, who are considered experienced users, perceive library websites differently than novice users. Perceptions of website design complexity vary greatly among experienced and novice users (Nadkarni & Gupta, 2007). Doctoral students and faculty members may perceive university library websites as simpler to use than inexperienced users (e.g., undergraduate students), and they may not seek out help as much as novice users.

Compared to doctoral students and faculty members, undergraduate students have a lower rate of information consumption because they are new to their subject areas and are at the stage of learning domain knowledge (mainly through textbooks). Undergraduate

students possess rudimentary information searching skills and need significant help (Atwong & Taylor, 2008; Bowers, Chew, Ford, Smith, & Herrington, 2009). Due to their lack of library experience, undergrad-

uate students often suffer from library anxiety (e.g., Bostick, 1992; Fister et al., 2008; Mellon, 1986). Studies show that as familiarity with the library increases, library anxiety decreases (e.g., Gross & Latham, 2007). Undergraduate students rely on information sources such as Google because they perceive them to be easy to use (Scoyoc & Cason, 2006). For master's students' information consumption and information seeking might be expected to fall somewhere between the doctoral student/faculty and undergraduate student groups. Because of these role differences, it is not surprising to observe significant user variances in digital library usage (Fister et al., 2008; Jiao & Onwuegbuzie, 1999; Rutledge & Maehler, 2003; Thompson, Kyrillidou, & Cook, 2008); consequently, user differences need to be considered for library website usage studies. Based on the literature, user groups are categorized as follows: (a) undergraduate students, (b) master's students, and (c) doctoral students and faculty members. 3.2. Three perspectives of library website usage

3.2.1. User perspective
This perspective is derived from technology adoption studies (e.g., Karahanna, Straub, & Chervany, 1999; Venkatesh, 2000) and has two elements: usefulness and convenience. People are likely to use a system when it is useful (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bogozzi, & Warshaw, 1992; Karahanna et al., 1999; Tarafdar & Zhang, 2008; Venkatesh, 2000). In the context of library website usage, relevance to academic tasks has been found to be a consistently significant factor (Hong et al., 2001–2002; Kim, 2008; Nov & Ye, 2008; Nov & Ye, 2009; Park et al., 2009). If library users perceive online resources as helpful, they are more likely to use the resources. Doctoral students and faculty members, whose academic roles require high information consumption, are more likely to perceive the resources as useful. Websites offering convenient services enable users to economize on time—saving travel time to a physical location and providing access to information whenever and wherever needed are pronounced

benefits that have been reported in e-commerce website studies (e.g., Keeney, 1999; Schaupp & Belanger, 2005; Torkzadeh & Dhillon, 2002). This perspective has been actively explored in e-commerce research and has been found to bear a positive relationship to use of a website (e.g., Tarafdar & Zhang, 2008). Library users also expect to access library information anytime, anywhere (Thompson et al., 2008). More specifically, university library websites empower users to economize on time and effort by making it easy to locate information, find items, and save them for later use without ever stepping into a physical library. This element, however, has not been considered in ULWR use studies; it is therefore timely to investigate the extent to which library users enjoy these benefits. Because doctoral students and faculty members greatly rely on ULWR for their tasks, they might be expected to rate convenience as more important than the two other user groups.

3.2.2. Website design perspective
If a website design is simple, people are more likely to use it (Nadkarni & Gupta, 2007; Schaik & Ling, 2007). It is not difficult to find positive relationships between website design and usability. For example, the easier it is to navigate a website, the less likely it is that users will become disoriented (Webster & Ahuja, 2006) and the more likely it is that users will use the website (Schaik & Ling, 2007). The easier it is to find information, the more a website's use will increase, especially with novice users such as children (Walker & Reynolds, 2000). Since such elements make it easier for users to search for information or interact with the website, design is an important element influencing users’ intentions to revisit a website (Nadkarni & Gupta, 2007; Tarafdar & Zhang, 2008). Certainly, users prefer website simplicity (Moss, Gunn, & Heller, 2006), logical information layouts, customization, and easy browsing (McKinney, Yoon, & Zahedi, 2002; Tarafdar & Zhang, 2008).

Y.-M. Kim / Library & Information Science Research 33 (2011) 63–72

Website designers organize information and present it to users, and users have little power to customize or modify website design. The perception of how well a website is designed will differ among users. Users judge website design based on criteria that are not innate to the website itself. This perception is directly related to a user's experience. Users spend cognitive resources to decode website cues and decide how to respond to them; if users then gain experience with the website, decoding it will be much easier (Nadkarni & Gupta, 2007). As a result, experienced users in the library setting are better able to navigate and search for information (Tabatabai & Shore, 2005). From this line of reasoning, doctoral students and faculty members will perceive the university library design as easy to navigate and use. With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, website design can also be viewed from the user's perspective. Web 2.0 features for lib...

-2002 -2553 -40 -60 -80 -8188 /j.lisr.2010.04.007 /tfms/2004a.spring/presentations/cni_guthrie_what.ppt. 0 000 001 002 003 005 006 008 009 010 015 016 019 020 026 030 037 038 041 050 059 065 071 0740 079 093 1 1.374 1.643 1.664 1.78 1.88 1.945 1.97 10 10.1016 100 101 106 11 110 111 1111 113 1132 1178 1191 124 125 127 13 131 1338 1349 135 139 14 14.21 14.42 142 145 146 148 15 150 152 159 16 16.55 160 161 162 165 166 167 168 169 17 170 1702 1708 171 172 175 176 18 18.97 181 1822 183 1837 187 19 19.57 191 193 194 195 196 1972 1977 1986 1988 1989 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2 2.0 2.28 2.36 2.49 2.671 2.72 2.85 20 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 202 204 208 209 21 211 213 215 216 218 22 2205 222 2225 224 23 2325 233 2334 234 24 241 246 248 25 255 258 27 272 273 274 275 277 28 28.75 283 289 29 291 292 295 296 3 3.1 3.10 3.12 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.34 3.51 3.59 3.73 3.87 3.91 3.96 3.97 30 300 303 304 31 315 319 32 32.74 327 328 33 332 337 34 340 341 342 344 35 353 355 36 363 365 372 377 38 38.87 382 384 385 39 4 4.00 4.08 4.1 4.2 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.28 4.29 4.3 4.4 4.41 4.47 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.63 4.67 4.76 4.78 4.82 4.86 4.91 4.95 4.98 4.99 40 404 41 411 41st 42 428 43 433 44 448 45 4502 452 46.62 462 463 464 47 49 490 5 5.00 5.05 5.08 5.1 5.10 5.11 5.15 5.17 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.20 5.25 5.28 5.30 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.40 5.42 5.51 5.53 5.55 5.57 5.60 5.66 5.69 5.70 5.76 5.77 5.79 5.81 5.84 5.85 5.99 50 501 505 51 52 524 528 53 533 535 540 542 55 56 563 57 58 59 594 599 6 6.03 6.42 6.46 6.51 6.91 60 602 61 612 62 621 63 636 64 65 657 66 661 67 678 68 69 7 7.88 70 71 715 72 74135 77 78 8 8.02 80 800 81 832 84 842 845 851 86 88 891 9 9.11 90 920 948 95 959 962 97 978 98 99 993 abba abl academ academi academia accept access accord account acknowledg acm across activ ad adam adapt addit address adjust adkin administr adopt advanc advent advic affect aggreg agre agreement ahuja al allevi allow along also altern although alyssa american amo among amount analysi analyt analyz and/or announc anonym anoth anova anxieti anytim anywher apart appear appendix appleg appli applic appreci approach appropri area argu argument around art articl articul ask aspect assess assign assist associ assumpt attain attempt attitud attract attribut atwong author avail b background base baseless basi bateman bear becam becom behavior belang belief believ belkin benefit bergstrom best better bias big bigger biggest black bogozzi book bookmark bookmarksa borgman borrow bostick bottom bower box brown brows build built bull burk burkman burton burton-jon busi bypass byrn c call calvert campus capabl carnegi carpent case cason catalog categor categori caus causal cecelia center ceo certain chain chain-referr challeng champeni chan chang channel chao character characterist check chervani chew children choic chosen chung circul claim class classific classroom clear close coast cognit collabor collect colleg color combin comment commerc commerci common communic compani compar comparison compel compet complet complex compos comprehens compris comput computer-human conceptu concern conclus conduct conjoint conni consequ consid consist consult consum consumpt contact contemporari content context continu contribut control controversi conveni convent cook could count counterpart countri cours cover creat credit criteria criterion critic crm cross cross-sect cudd cue culley cultur curriculum custom d daili data databas dataset date davi deal decemb decid declin decod decreas degre deliv dens deriv design design-rel desir detail determin detroit develop dewald definit dhillon differ differencesa differencesc difficult digit dimens direct disagre disciplin disconfirm discov discuss disori disorient display disproport dissert dissimilar distinct distribut divers doc/faculty doctor doctoral/faculty doctoral/research document doi domain dossett draft draw drawn driven dudley due dwiggin e e-commerc e-mail e-servic e.g earli earlier eas easi easier easili east econom edit educ effect effort efficient either electron element elsevi embed emerg emot empir employ employe empow enabl encourag end end-user-ori engag engin enhanc enjoy enough ensur entri entry-level environ epistemolog equat equival especi essenti esser estim et etc european evalu ever everi evid exact examin exampl except exemplar exhaust exist expect experi experienc experienti expert expertis explain explor extent extern extra extrem extrins f f-valu face facet facilit fact factor faculti faculty/doctoral fair fall familiar favor feasibl featur feedback femal final financ find finley finn first fister fleet focus fold follow font ford formul forti forty-four forty-fiv found four framework frank fredonia frequenc frequent fri friend front full full-text fulli fulfill function furthermor g gain gather gaug general generaliz georgia get gilbert gilliland given glass good googl graduat graham grant graphic grate great greater greisdorf gross ground group guidanc gunn gupta guthri h haglund hammershlag hand harpel harpel-burk hart heali heavi heaviest heckathorn heim heinrich heller help hemming henc hernon herrington hidden high higher highest highlight histori holist homepag hong hour howev hsieh hsieh-ye hu hubona human hypothes i.e identifi identifi ii impact imped implic import improv inabl inc includ increas independ index indic individu industri inexperienc inferenti inform innat insight insignific inspect instead institut instructor instrument integr intent interact interdisciplinari interest interfac interlibrari intern internet intersect intrins introduc introduct invari invest investig influenc israel issu item j jane jerabek jiao johnston jone jose journal judg judgment k karahanna katz keeney key kim kind king know knowledg known kordinak kyrillidou l lab lack laher languag larg larger largest later latham latter layout learn learning-mod least leav lee less let level li libqual librari librarian librarianship libri life light like likert lim limit lin lind line ling link lis list listen literaci literatur littl loan locat log logic longitudin look low lower loyalti lu m made maehler mail main major make male manag mandat mani manner marchionini market massey master masteri materi matter may mcgradi mckinney meadow mean measur medium medium-s meet meil mellon member membership memori men met method meyer mi midwest might millwood mirror miss mixtur modal model moder modifi modific month montoya montoya-weiss moss motiv much mulitigroup multi multi-group multipl multivari must mylibrari myresearch n nab nadkarni name natur navig necessari need neutral never new news next nielsen nonetheless nonprob nonrandom note notic nov novic number numer o oak object observ offer often ok oklahoma olsson one onlin onto onwuegbuzi operation optim option order organ orient other out outsid overal overlook overview p p-valu pack page palmer paper paper-bas paramet parenthesi park part particip particular partner partnership patron pattern peopl perceiv percentag percept perform permiss person perspect phone physic pictur piecem pilot pink place plan platt pleas point polit poor popul pose posit possess possibl post post-adopt potenti power practition preadopt prefer present pretest prevent previous primari prime principl print prior problem problemat procedur proceed process procur produc product profession program project pronounc proper propos provid provis proxim psycholog psychologist psychometr public q qualiti quality-rel qualific quarter queri query-bas question questionnair quick r random rang rare rate rather reach reaction read readabl real realli reason recal recent recept recogn recommend recruit reduc redund refer referr regard region relat relationship relev reli relianc repeat report repres requir research resembl reserv resist resourc respond respondent-driven respons result retriev retrospect return review revisit reynold reflect rich right road role roman row rowan rudimentari ruthven rutledg said sampl satisfact satisfi save scale scant schaik schaupp scholar scholarship school schusterman scienc sciencedirect scientist scott scoyoc screen search second section see seek select self self-estim self-suffici sent serious serv servic set seven seven-point shed shore show shown side signific similar simpl simpler simplic simplifi simul sinc singl site size skill slight small smallest smart smith social societi softwar somewhat somewher sought sourc space spangenberg special specialist specific specul spend spink spite split spurious st stabil stage state statement statist statistician status step still stock strain straub stream strong structur student student/faculty studi subgroup subject submit subscrib subsect subsequ substanti success suffer sufficient suggest suit suni support surpris survey synergi system systemat tabatabai tabl tactic tahir tam tarafdar task task-bas taylor teach teas technic techniqu technolog technology-compet tell tend term test text textbook theoret theori therebi therefor thing think third thompson thomsett thomsett-scott thong though threat three thus time tombro tool topic torkzadeh total toward traffic train transact travel treat trend true tulsa two two-fold type typic uat ulwr unanticip under undergrad undergradu understand underus unexpect unfamiliar unifi uniqu unit univers unless unpublish up-to-d updat us usa usabl usag usageb use usefulness-rel usefulnessrel user user-focus user-friend util v vakkari valid valu valuabl van vari variabl varianc variat various vaughan venkatesh versus via view visibl visit visitor voluntari w walker wang want warshaw way wayn web web-custom webpag websit websitea webster week wei weiss well whenev wherea wherev whether white whitmir whole whose wide wider wikipedia wildemuth winter within without women wong word work workplac would www.cni.org www.cni.org/tfms/2004a.spring/presentations/cni_guthrie_what.ppt. x xie y ye yee yen yes yet yitzhaki yong yong-mi [email protected] yoon yuan zahedi zhang field filling final finaliz financial find finding finish finite first fit five flexibl flow