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.

The emergence of Web 2.0, the read/write social web, has prompted a momentous change in the way library users seek information, communicate, and collaborate. This trend is affecting the usability and relevance of libraries as the epicentres of information and knowledge. It is essential, therefore, that libraries adopt this technology to fit their services and products as closely as possible to the emerging lifestyles of the users. The application of Web 2.0 tools to conceptualise and deliver library services in developed countries is widely documented. In Africa, however, literature on this subject remains scanty. The authors conducted a reality check of the current status of the application of Web 2.0 tools in libraries, assessed the current impact of Web 2.0 on library services, identified the challenges African libraries face while adopting Web 2.0, and proposed ways to use Web 2.0 tools effectively in libraries in Africa.

Purpose Cyber-bullying is a form of harassment that is perpetrated using electronic media. The practice has become increasingly common especially with the growing ubiquity of social media platforms. Most cyber-bullying cases inevitably occur on Facebook because it is the most preferred social media platform. However, little is known about cyber-bullying research in Kenya. This paper aims to analyse the quantity, quality, visibility and authorship trends of scholarly publications on cyber-bullying from and/or about Kenya. Design/methodology/approach This study was conducted as a systematic literature review. A meta-analysis approach was used. Bibliometrics approaches were used to conduct the analysis. Data on the publications was collected from Google Scholar using Harzing's “Publish or Perish” software and then analysed and presented using Microsoft Excel, Notepad and VOSviewer. Findings The study yielded 359 research publications on cyber-bullying in Kenya. There was a gradual increment in the number of publications, peaking in 2018. Nearly half of the publications have not been cited indicating low uptake of research on cyber-bullying in Kenya. It also emerged that most of the research has been published on subscription channels thereby restricting their visibility, access and use. Minimal collaboration in research on cyber-bullying in Kenya was also observed since 67.4% of the publications were written by a single (one) author. The authors conclude that the quantity, quality and visibility of research on cyber-bullying in Kenya is low. Originality/value This is an empirical study. The findings can be used to promote and mainstream research on cyber-bullying in Kenya.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to analyse the skills required by lecturers to be able to support research data management effectively; assess the research data management literacy levels amongst lecturers at Strathmore University; and suggest how research data management capacity can be strengthened to mitigate the knowledge gaps identified.Design/methodology/approachThis study was conducted as a mixed methods research. Explanatory sequential mixed methods approach was used to collect, analyse and interpret quantitative and qualitative data from lecturers at Strathmore University in Nairobi, Kenya. Quantitative data was collected using questionnaires while qualitative data was collected through focus group discussions. Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS while qualitative data was analysed thematically.FindingsThe findings of this study indicate varied levels of research data management literacy amongst lecturers at Strathmore University. Lecturers understand the need of having literacy skills in managing research data. They also participate in data creation, collection, processing, validation, dissemination, sharing and archiving. This is a clear indication of good research data management. However, the study also revealed gaps in research data management skills amongst the lecturers in areas such as sharing of research data on open access journals, data legislation and securing research data.Research limitations/implicationsThe study has been conducted in one university in Kenya. However, the findings have been contextualised in the global landscape through suitable references.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study may be used to attract the attention of lecturers and librarians to research data management. The findings may also be used to develop institutional policies on research data management at Strathmore University and beyond. The suggested ways of research data capacity strengthening can be adopted or adapted by other universities to enhance research data management.Originality/valueThis is an original study.