Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study

Aharony, Noa; Prebor, Gila

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discovery tools enable to connect patrons with the library's storehouse of information and search indexes and databases quickly and easily. These tools tend to be more popular with users, especially undergraduates, than traditional library search tools [9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Discovery Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) Usage in Israeli Academic Libraries

Greenberg¹

2020

Digital Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Awareness to the problem that different search interfaces discourage patrons' use of library information sources has led academic libraries to implement web-scale discovery services. These services offer the user a "Google-like" search experience of library resources. This study aims to explore library professionals' satisfaction, patrons' information behavior, and use of EDS discovery tool service in academic libraries in Israel. Mixed research methods were used in this study: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative research methods are through content analysis of library directors' interviews, and quantitative research method is through collected library metrics (from Google analytics) data analysis, regarding usage patterns and search session analysis. The study aims to gain insight regarding library implementation and patrons' information behavior of the EDS discovery tool, in Israeli higher education institutions.Keywords: information behavior, academic libraries, Israel, EDS discovery service, search in the library Digital Imaging 2 in the life of all library users. It is the most popular search engine for queries about daily issues and for academic needs. It empowers library visitors to search for their academic information needs, within an easy and popular interface [2]. In libraries, some consider this an obstacle, and some see it as an opportunity for innovations and improvements. One thing is certain: Google redefined the search experience, and libraries should acknowledge this.In 2004, Google launched Google Scholar, a tool for discovering scholarly information. Google Scholar is a search engine for academic articles, theses, books, abstracts, and court opinions from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities, and other websites. This free resource, with its basic and familiar interface, has the potential to serve as a scholarly metasearch information engine [3,4]. Google Scholar has received mixed receptions from the librarian community. It has some advanced search features, but it provides no interface for refining the results. Users can set preferences such as language, year, author, and periodical title. They can also view an indication of the libraries from which it can access the source, citation export options, and how to cite the source (for many citation styles). The reviews and critiques of Google Scholar have been mixed, at best. Its content, its search engine, its interface, and its citation count have all been criticized. Patrons of libraries who have subscriptions to the digital archives of publishers are the greatest beneficiaries of Google Scholar, as with a single search they are led to the full digital text versions of the articles [4-6]. Google Scholar is very different from library database interfaces and their search options, yet it introduces library users to scholarly articles through a familiar and friendly interface.

show abstract

Section: Discovery Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Courses are often taught in Hebrew, though Israeli universities also offer English-taught programs. In Israel, academic libraries started to implement discovery services in 2010 [9].…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) Usage in Israeli Academic Libraries

Greenberg¹

2020

Digital Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the discovery tool produced results from databases that the librarians would not normally have used. Aharony and Prebor (2015) conducted a psychological study to discover why some librarians are more apt to accept or reject discovery tools than others. The researchers found that personality characteristics drive the adoption and use of discovery tools by librarians.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does it Take to Make Discovery a Success?: A Survey of Discovery Tool Adoption, Instruction, and Evaluation Among Academic Libraries

Nichols

Crist

Sherriff

et al. 2017

Journal of Web Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discovery tools have been widely adopted by academic libraries, yet little information exists that connects common practices regarding discovery tool implementation, maintenance, assessment, 2 and staffing with conventions for research and instruction. The authors surveyed heads of reference and instruction departments in research and land-grant university libraries. The survey results revealed common practices with discovery tools among academic libraries. This study also draws connections between operational, instructional, and assessment practices and perceptions that participants have of the success of their discovery tool. Participants who indicated successful implementation of their discovery tool hailed from institutions that made significant commitments to the operations, maintenance, and acceptance of their discovery tool. Participants who indicated an unsuccessful implementation, or who were unsure about the success of their implementation, did not make lasting commitments to the technical maintenance, operations, and acceptance of their discovery tool.

show abstract

“…IS scholars started to discuss the relationship between personal factors and information systems a few decades ago (White, 1984). Most recent studies focus on the link between personality traits, often measured with the support of the five-factor model, and various factors, such as internet use (McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, and DeMarie (2007), use of collaborative technology (Devaraj, Easley, & Crant, 2008), use of Facebook in terms of the nature of posts or number of Facebook connections (Moore & McElroy, 2012) and use of librarians' discovery tools (Aharony & Prebor, 2015).…”

Section: Consequences Of Technostress Have Been Analyzed By Many Infomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although scholars have begun to examine the impact of personality traits on individual outcomes (Srivastava et al, 2015) and individual well-being (Higgs & Dulewicz, 2014), previous studies have instead focused on the relationship between personality and use of technology (Aharony & Prebor, 2015), while negative individual outcomes such as technostress have not been investigated in detail. Our study contributes to the technostress research steam by focusing on antecedents of technostress, in contrast to previous scholarly work concentrating on consequences, such as individual productivity (M. Tarafdar, Q. Tu, B. S. Ragu-Nathan, & T. Ragu-Nathan, 2007a) or job satisfaction (Ragu-Nathan et al, 2008).…”

Section: Conclusion Contributions To Research and Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%