Current topics in LibQUAL+® studies: the paradigms of the informative and the social-maker library and the gender issue as reflections of the social reality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2020.2.1649Keywords:
University libraries, LibQUAL ®, satisfaction, library users, gender, library evaluation, informative library, social-maker libraryAbstract
The purposes of this article are four: to analyze the main differences between the best valued dimensions of three studies on users satisfaction based on LibQUAL+® and carried out in university libraries of Spain, Argentina and Chile: to analyze the differences of the gender issue (men and women); to determine whether the differences on gender are statistically significant; and to discuss about the results in the specific field of libraries, as a reflection of the social reality in general. The results show that, in Spain, users are less satisfied with the dimension of the library as a space while in Latin America there is a lower degree of satisfaction about the control of information. The highest degree of satisfaction is found, in all the three studies, in the dimension related with the affective value of the service. Women in Spain show less satisfaction and a higher demand than men in the affective value of service. In addition, statistically significant differences were found in the analysis of the averages by gender. The results are discussed considering the reviewed literature and two paradigms are defined for libraries: the informative and the social-maker libraries, considering the satisfaction rates by gender as a reflection of the social reality. The main limitation of the article is that it is based on three specific studies. On the other hand, its main value and originality is that it can be considered as a starting point for further research on the gender issue in the field of libraries and their services.
Downloads
References
Ahmed, S. (2017). Service Quality Satisfaction: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study of Public and Private University Librarians in Pakistan. Libri, 67 (4), 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2017-0011
ARL. (2018). Association of Research Libraries - Libqual+ 2018 Survey. Disponible en: https://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/notebooks/261_6.pdf [Fecha de consulta: 06/06/2019].
ARWU. (2020). ARWU World University Rankings 2018 | Academic Ranking of World Universities [en línea]. Disponible en: http://www.shanghairanking.com/index.html [Fecha de consulta: 01/04/2020].
Asemi, A.; Kazempour, Z.; Rizi, H. A. (2010). Using LibQUAL+TM to improve services to libraries: A report on academic libraries of Iran experience. Electronic Library, 28 (4), 568-579. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471011065382
Buck, S.; Nutefall, J. E.; Bridges, L. M. (2012). "We thought it might encourage participation." Using lottery incentives to improve LibQUAL+TM response rates among students. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38 (6), 400-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.07.004
Cabrerizo, F. J.; López-Gijón, J.; Martínez, M. A.; Morente-Molinera, J. A.; Herrera-Viedma, E. (2017). A Fuzzy Linguistic Extended LibQUAL+ Model to Assess Service Quality in Academic Libraries. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 16 (01), 225-244. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622015500406
Cabrerizo, F. J.; Pérez, I. J.; López-Gijón, J.; Herrera-Viedma, E. (2012). An Extended LibQUAL+ Model Based on Fuzzy Linguistic Information. En: Torra, V.; Narukawa, Y.; López, B.; Villaret, M. (eds.), Modelling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence pp. 90-101. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Collins, E.; Stone, G. (2014). Understanding Patterns of Library Use Among Undergraduate Students from Different Disciplines. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9 (3), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8930K
Cook, C.; Heath, F. (2001). The ARL "LibQUAL+" Pilot Project. Journal of Library Administration, 35 (4), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v35n04_10
Cook, C.; Heath, F.; Thompson, B. (2001). Libqual+: One Instrument in the New Measures Toolbox. Journal of Library Administration, 35 (4), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v35n04_09
Cook, C.; Heath, F.; Thompson, B.; Kyrillidou, M.; Roebuck, G.; Yeager, A. (2014). European College and University Libraries. Disponible en: https://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/2014/ Euro_2014.pdf [Fecha de consulta: 06/06/2019].
Cook, C.; Thompson, B. (2001). Psychometric Properties of Scores from the Web-Based LibQUAL+ Study of Perceptions of Library Service Quality. Library Trends, 49 (4), 585-604.
Cook, C.; Thompson, B.; Heath, F.; Thompson, R. (2001). LibQUAL+: Service Quality Assessment in Research Libraries. IFLA Journal, 27 (4), 264-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/034003520102700410
Dahan, S. M.; Taib, M. Y.; Zainudin, N. M.; Ismail, F. (2016). Surveying Users' Perception of Academic Library Services Quality: A Case Study in Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) Library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42 (1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.10.006
Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2004). La investigación por encuesta en la biblioteconomía y documentación española: Análisis de las encuestas publicadas en revistas y congresos de la especialidad entre 1976 y 1997. En: Ríos-Hilario, A.B.
Frías-Montoya, J.A. (coords), Metodologías de investigación en Información y Documentación, 2004, pp. 71-136. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Fernández-Ardèvol, M.; Ferran-Ferrer, N.; Nieto-Arroyo, J.; Fenoll, C. (2018). The public library as seen by the non-users. El Profesional de La Información, 27 (3), 659-670. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.19
Fushimi, M. (2011). Evaluación de bibliotecas universitarias: una propuesta desde las perspectivas objetiva y subjetiva. Buenos Aires: Alfagrama.
Gimeno-Perelló, J. (2008). Evaluación de la calidad en bibliotecas: compromiso con lo público. Buenos Aires: Alfagrama.
Hariri, N.; Afnani, F. (2008). LibQUAL+ (TM) in Iran: a subgroup analysis by gender. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9 (2), 80-93. https://doi.org/10.1108/14678040810906790
Heinrichs, J. H.; Sharkey, T.; Lim, J.-S. (2005). Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+TM Dimensions on Satisfaction: A Subgroup Analysis. College & Research Libraries, 66 (3), 248-265. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.3.248
Herrera-Viedma, E.; López-Gijón, J. (2013). Libraries' Social Role in the Information Age. Science, 339 (6126), 1382-1382.
Hiller, S. (2001). Assessing user needs, satisfaction and library performance at the University of Washington Libraries. Library Trends, 49 (4), 605-625.
Hossain-Shoeb, Z. (2010). Perceptions of Library Services by Gender - a Study in Bangladesh. Libri, 60 (4), 331- 338. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.2010.028
Hossain-Shoeb, Z.; Zabed-Ahmed, S. M. (2009). Individual differences in service quality assessment: A study of a private university library system in Bangladesh. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 10 (3), 193- 211. https://doi.org/10.1108/14678040911014194
Houghton, K.; Foth, M.; Miller, E. (2013). The continuing relevance of the library as a third place for users and non-users of IT: the case of Canada Bay. The Australian Library Journal, 62 (1), p. 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2013.771764
Killick, S.; Van-Weerden, A.; Van-Weerden, F. (2014). Using LibQUAL+® to identify commonalities in customer satisfaction: the secret to success? Performance Measurement and Metrics, 15 (1/2), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-04-2014-0012
Lázaro-Rodríguez, P.; López-Gijón, J.; Alonso, S.; Martínez-Sánchez: M-Á.; Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018a). Secaba-Rank, herramienta online para analizar y evaluar bibliotecas. El profesional de la información, 27 (2), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.mar.06
Lázaro-Rodríguez, P.; López-Gijón, J.; Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018b). Visibilidad de las bibliotecas públicas y la lectura en medios de comunicación españoles frente a otros hechos de la cultura y relación con su uso: medidas para su mayor promoción y difusión. BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació, 40.
Lázaro-Rodríguez, P.; López-Gijón, J.; Herrera-Viedma, E. (2019). Secaba-Rank a examen: validación de su metodología sobre eficiencia en bibliotecas versus la técnica Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) y el método Finlandia. El profesional de la información, 28 (3). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.may.16
Lázaro-Rodríguez, P.; Vakkari, P. (2018). Modelizando el uso de las bibliotecas públicas a través de sus características: estudio comparativo entre España y Finlandia para los préstamos y las visitas. Revista española de documentación científica, 41 (4), e216. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2018.4.1544
Leorke, D.; Wyatt, D.; McQuire, S. (2018). "More than just a library": Public libraries in the 'smart city'. City, Culture and Society, 15, 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2018.05.002
LibQUAL+®. (2020). LibQUAL+® Publications [en línea]. Disponible en: https://www.libqual.org/publications [Fecha de consulta: 01/04/2020].
Lin, H.; Pang, N.; Luyt, B. (2015). Is the library a third place for young people?. Journal of librarianship and information science, 47 (2), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614532303
López-Gijón, J.; Ávila-Fernández, B.; Pérez-Gálvez, I.J.; Herrera-Viedma, E. (2010). La calidad en las bibliotecas universitarias biomédicas según sus usuarios. El Profesional de la Información, 19 (3), 255-259. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2010.may.05
Lor, P. J. (2008). Critical reflections on international librarianship. Mousaion, 25 (1), 1-15. Disponible en: http://hdl.handle.net/2263/9911
Lor, P. J. (2017). International and Comparative Librarianship. En: McDonald, J.D.; Levine-Clark, M. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Maidul-Islam, M. D; Zabed-Ahmed, S. M. (2011). Measuring Dhaka University students' perceptions of ease-of-use and their satisfaction with University Library's online public access catalogue. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 12 (3), 142-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/14678041111196631
McCaffrey, C. (2013). LibQUAL in Ireland: Performance Assessment and Service Improvement in Irish University Libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39 (4), 347-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.11.036
MECD. (2020). Bibliotecas públicas españolas en cifras [en línea]. Disponible en: http://www.mecd.gob.es/cultura-mecd/areas-cultura/bibliotecas/mc/ebp/portada.html [Fecha de consulta: 01/04/2020].
Morales, M.; Ladhari, R.; Reynoso, J.; Toro, R.; Sepulveda, C. (2011). Factor structure and psychometric properties of a Spanish version of LibQUAL+TM. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 12 (1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/14678041111124270
Validating LibQUAL+® using multitrait multimethod analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 38 (1), 30-38.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Okpala, H. N. (2016). Making a makerspace case for academic libraries in Nigeria. New Library World, 117 (9-10), 568-586. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-05-2016-0038
Oomes, M.; Audunson, R.; Vakkari, P.; Aabø, S.; Huysmans, F. (2014). Perceived outcomes of public libraries in Finland, Norway and the Netherlands. Journal of Documentation, 70 (5), 927-944. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2013-0072
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V. A.; Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A Multiple-Item Scale For Measuring Consumer Perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.
Pourahmad, A. A.; Neshat, M.; Hasani, M. R. (2016). Using LibQUAL Model for Improving the Level of Students' Satisfaction from Quality of Services in Academic Libraries: A Case Study in North Khorasan Province, Iran. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 15 (1), 1650011. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649216500118
Rehman, S. U. (2013). Service Quality Assessment in University Libraries of Pakistan. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science-Revue Canadienne des Sciences de L'Information et de Bibliotheconomie, 37 (1), 59-80. https://doi.org/10.1353/ils.2013.0001
Rey-Martín, C. (1999). La aplicación de los estudios de satisfacción de usuarios en la biblioteca universitaria: el caso de las universidades catalanas. BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació, 3. http://bid.ub.edu/03rey2.htm
Sin, S.-C. J.; Huysmans, F.; Vakkari, P.; Aabø, S.; Audunson, R.; Oomes, M.; Kwon, N. (2016). Patterns of perceived public library outcomes in five countries. Journal of Documentation, 72 (2), 342-361. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-08-2015-0103
Slatter, D.; Howard, Z. (2013). A place to make, hack, and learn: makerspaces in Australian public libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 62 (4), 272-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2013.853335
Thompson, B.; Cook, C. (2002). Stability of the Reliability of LibQual+TM Scores a Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62 (4), 735-743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062004013
Thompson, B.; Cook, C.; Kyrillidou, M. (2005). Concurrent Validity of LibQUAL+TM Scores: What Do LibQUAL+TM Scores Measure? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31 (6), 517-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.08.002
Toledo-Sánchez, M. C.; Maldonado-Radillo, S. E.; López- Torres, V. G. (2012). Propiedades psicométricas de una adaptación de LibQUAL+. Un estudio en bibliotecas de universidades mexicanas. Biblios: Revista de Bibliotecología y Ciencias de la Información, 49, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5195/BIBLIOS.2012.72
Universidad de Salamanca. (2020). Observatorio de la Calidad y el Rendimiento Académico [En línea]. Disponible en: http://indicadores.usal.es/portal/ [Fecha de consulta: 01/04/2020].
Voorbij, H. (2012). The use of LibQUAL+ by European research libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 13 (3), 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/14678041211284704
Webometrics. (2020). Ranking Web of Universities [en línea]. Disponible en: http://www.webometrics.info/en [Fecha de consulta: 01/04/2020].
Xi, Q.; Wu, W.; Zhang, Y. (2017). Makerspace Activities in China. Science and Technology Libraries, 36 (4), 425- 433. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2017.1392920
Yesmin, S.; Zabed-Ahmed, S. M. (2016). Preference of Bangladesh university students for searching the library catalogue: OPAC or discovery tool? The Electronic Library, 34 (4), 683-695. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-07-2015-0139
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
