This paper is based on a PhD study (Lwoga, 2009) that sought to assess the application of knowledge management (KM) approaches in managing indigenous knowledge (IK) for sustainable agricultural practices in developing countries, with a specific focus on Tanzania. This study used a mixed-research method which was conducted in six districts of Tanzania. Non-participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups were used to collect primary data from small-scale farmers in the selected districts. A total of 181 farmers participated in the semi-structured interviews, where the respondents ranged between 27 and 37 per district. Twelve focus group discussions were conducted in the selected districts. The study revealed that IK was acquired and shared within a small, weak and spontaneous network, and thus knowledge loss was prevalent in the surveyed communities. There were distinct variations in the acquisition of agricultural IK both in different locations and between genders. Information and communication technologies (ICT), culture, trust, and status influenced the sharing and distribution of IK in the surveyed communities. The research findings showed that KM models can be used to manage and integrate IK with other knowledge systems, taking the differences into account (for example, gender, location, culture, infrastructure). The paper concludes with recommendations for the application of KM approaches for the management of IK and its integration with other knowledge systems for agricultural development in developing countries, including Tanzania. ª

This paper is based on part of the findings of a PhD study that was carried out to determine how farmers have used indigenous knowledge (IK) to

This paper is based on a PhD study (Lwoga, 2009) that sought to assess the application of knowledge management (KM) approaches in managing indigenous knowledge (IK) for sustainable agricultural practices in developing countries, with a specific focus on Tanzania. This study used a mixed-research method which was conducted in six districts of Tanzania. Non-participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups were used to collect primary data from small-scale farmers in the selected districts. A total of 181 farmers participated in the semi-structured interviews, where the respondents ranged between 27 and 37 per district. Twelve focus group discussions were conducted in the selected districts. The study revealed that IK was acquired and shared within a small, weak and spontaneous network, and thus knowledge loss was prevalent in the surveyed communities. There were distinct variations in the acquisition of agricultural IK both in different locations and between genders. Information and communication technologies (ICT), culture, trust, and status influenced the sharing and distribution of IK in the surveyed communities. The research findings showed that KM models can be used to manage and integrate IK with other knowledge systems, taking the differences into account (for example, gender, location, culture, infrastructure). The paper concludes with recommendations for the application of KM approaches for the management of IK and its integration with other knowledge systems for agricultural development in developing countries, including Tanzania. ª

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the leadership styles that academic and research librarians apply as well as their effectiveness in meeting their institutions’ strategic objectives. The study also compared and contrasted the leadership styles and their corresponding impact in the effective delivery of academic and research library services in Kenya and South Africa. Design/methodology/approach The study applied a survey research technique to garner the opinions of the librarians about the leadership styles of their leaders. Primary data were collected through key informant interviews with academic and research librarians. Additional data were collected through documentary analysis. The data were analysed and processed through content analysis. Findings The findings indicate that most academic and research library leaders in South Africa and Kenya embrace a democratic leadership style. The results also show that most academic and research librarians hold the view that the leadership styles of their managers have a great impact on their individual performance and overall organisational effectiveness. Practical implications The results of the study can be used to recommend or adopt leadership styles which have a higher potential of making a greater impact in Kenyan and South African academic and research libraries. The results can also be used as the basis for relevant curricula and policy development. Originality/value The role of university librarians as leaders and the determinants of the effectiveness of academic and research library leaders, including leadership styles, have received minimal attention from scholars, particularly those in Africa. This study addresses the gap as it investigated the impact of the leadership styles of academic and research librarians on the effectiveness of their institutions, compared the academic and research library leadership scenarios in South Africa with Kenya, and makes recommendations on how to enhance leadership effectiveness.

Using the ‘point oh’ naming system for developments in librarianship is attracting debate about its appropriateness, basis and syntax and the meaning and potential of Library 2.0. Now a new term, Library 3.0, has emerged. Is there is any significant difference between the two models? Using documentary analysis to explore the terms, the authors conclude that Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 are different. Whereas Library 2.0 could be seen as attempting to weaken the role of librarians in the emerging information environment, Library 3.0 projects librarians as prominent apomediaries guiding library users on how best to locate, access and use credible information in myriad formats from diverse sources, at the point of need. The Library 3.0 model has revived hope amongst those who were uncomfortable with the crowd intelligence architecture on which the Library 2.0 model was founded. It provides the tools and framework to organize the infosphere that the Library 2.0 threw into disarray. The authors see the 3.0 library as a personalizable, intelligent, sensitive and living institution created and sustained by a seamless engagement of library users, librarians and subject experts on a federated network of information pathways.