ARTICLE IN PRESS

The International Information & Library Review (2008) 40, 52–63

The InternationalInformation & Library Review

1057-2317/$ - sdoi:10.1016/j.i

�Fax: +98 71E-mail addr

www.elsevier.com/locate/iilr

Adoption of electronic reference materialsin academic libraries of Iran

Zouhayr Hayati�, Tahere Jowkar

Department of Library and Information Science, Shiraz University, P.O. Box 71944, Shiraz, Fars, Iran

Summary Libraries have experienced a great deal of change in communicationnetworks and information technology. The Iranian academic libraries, like otherlibraries, attempted to adopt the new information technology. It should be realizedthat although new information technologies and electronic resources are collectedon a large scale by academic libraries they are not always used in the same scale.There are some factors, which affect the rate of adoption of each new technology.Rogers in his theory introduced these factors in five categories as relative advantage,observability, trial- ability, complexity and compatibility. This paper investigates theeffects of different features of electronic reference materials on the rate of theiradoption. Results show that the most effective factors in adoption of electronicreference materials are the ability of electronic reference materials to facilitateinformation retrieval, shortening the time of searching and fair cost of resources. Inaddition, it seems that the most problematic factors, which slow down the adoptionof electronic reference materials, stem from unfamiliarity of academic librariansand users with computers and searching of databases.& 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Libraries, especially academic libraries have ex-perienced a great deal of changes in communica-tion networks and information technology. Theseorganizations are important factors in transmissionof information technology to their users that areacademic staff and other researchers. The intro-duction of CDs and local databases in 1980sand then the World Wide Web in 1990s havechanged the system of scholarly communication

ee front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserveilr.2007.09.003

1 6276374.ess: zhayati@rose.shirazu.ac.ir (Z. Hayati).

tremendously. Developing countries are increas-ingly adopting information technologies to solvetheir developmental problems. Academic librariesin these countries, like their counterparts indeveloped countries, are making a large effortto adopt new technologies to revive scholarlycommunication.

Iranian academic libraries are not an exception;they are in the passage from paper environment tothe electronic environment. In this passage, theyare eagerly attempting to adopt new technologies,which can lead them to more productivity, reducedcosts and greater efficiency. Now, they are pioneersin introducing new technological changes in the

d.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Adoption of electronic reference materials in academic libraries of Iran 53

form of off-line and online reference materials. It isworth mentioning that the adoption of newinformation technology in Iranian academic li-braries does not mean their final acceptance andefficient use. There are many internal and externalfactors, which affect their acceptance by academiclibrarians and their users. These factors could beattributed to poor infrastructure, high costs,language barriers, social factors and politics,contributing impediments to the process (Al-Gahtani,2003, p. 69). This article aims to study the internaland external features of electronic referencematerials, which can accelerate their adoption inIranian academic libraries.

The significance and aims of the study

The introduction of new information technology hastremendously changed the forms of informationservices in libraries to provide online access toelectronic reference materials for their users(Martin, 2001). Many reference materials, includingbooks and periodicals, have changed into electronicoff-line and online databases and are available tolibrary patrons. The Iranian academic libraries,especially those which are affiliated with theMinistry of Science, Research and Technology,attempted to adopt the new information technol-ogy by heavy investment. These universities alongwith medical sciences universities have provided afairly good infrastructure for the development oflocal and national networks. Academic librarieshave online access to databases of publishers suchas Elsevier, Wiley, Springer and of aggregators suchas Ebsco and Proquest. It should be realized thatalthough electronic information sources are col-lected on a large scale by academic libraries, theyare not used in the same scale (Weiner, 2003,p. 69).

Researchers are particularly interested in factorsthat affect the adoption of information technologyinnovations. Adoption here is a function of one’swillingness to try new products, technologies orideas (Cheong, 2002). Diffusion theory is usedfrequently to evaluate the effect of perceivedinnovation attributes on the rate of adoption ofinnovations. Everret M. Rogers,1 who introducedthe diffusion of innovations theory in 1964,recognized the features of the innovation whichare most important in its adoption (Rogers, 1986,pp. 124–34). Electronic reference materials are notan exception to this general rule. By studying andrecognizing the features of these materials, which

1An American sociologist.

help or hinder new introduction, managers ofacademic libraries can increase the rate of adop-tion of electronic reference materials by cultivat-ing the positive factors to enhance their adoptionwhile trying to reduce the effects of negativefactors.

The theoretical framework of the study

Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory, which hasbeen supported by more than five thousandresearch studies, was selected as the theoreticalframework for this study. In his theory Rogersdefines innovation as ‘‘an idea, practice or objectthat is perceived to be new by an individual orother unit of adoption’’ (1995, p. 11). The newnessof the idea does not depend on its first applicationor discovery. The only premise is that the ideaseems new to the person. In this case, it isrecognized as an innovation or factor of change(Diffusion of Innovations Theory, 1998). This theorydiscusses the factors that affect the adoption of aninnovation. Rogers summarized these factors in fivecategories as follows (Borgatta & Montgomery,2000, pp. 676–679; Holland, 1997; Rogers, 1995,pp. 204–251; Walker, 1999, pp. 15–33).

1.

‘‘Relative advantage: is the degree to which aninnovation is perceived as better than the idea itsupersedes’’ (Rogers, 1995, p. 212). The adop-ter’s better understanding of the new idea willincrease the rate of adoption.

2.

‘‘Compatibility: is the degree to which aninnovation is perceived as consistent with theexisting values, past experiences, and needs ofpotential adopters’’ (Rogers, 1995, p. 224). Thisfeature is valid for innovations, which affectcultural and social values important to adopters.

3.

‘‘Complexity: is the degree to which an innova-tion is perceived as relatively difficult to under-stand and use’’ (Rogers, 1995, p. 242). Someinnovations are easy to understand while someare not. This factor has a negative relationshipwith innovation. This means that the higher thedegree of complexity of an idea the lower will beits rate of adoption.

4.

‘‘Trialability: is the degree to which an innova-tion may be experimented with on a limitedbasis’’ (Rogers, 1995, p. 243). This should bepossible at lower cost for the potential adopters.

5.

‘‘Observability: is the degree to which theresults of an innovation are visible to others’’(Rogers, 1995, p. 244). Some people are veryconservative in accepting new ideas. However,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Z. Hayati, T. Jowkar54

when they can observe the good and validresults of an innovation they will be convincedto accept the new idea.

These factors affect the decisions of adopters ofelectronic reference materials. These factors, withthe exception of complexity, have positive correla-tion with the probability of acceptance of innova-tion by a person or a group.

This paper investigates the effects of differentfeatures of electronic reference materials on therate of adoption of this innovation.

The review of literature

An overview of the literature shows that there aremany researchers who studied the impacts of thefeatures of innovations on different social settingson the basis of Rogers’ theory (Rogers, 1995). Mostof these scholars have emphasized the incentiveand preventive roles of the features on adoption ofan innovation. On an explanation of his theory,Rogers reports the studies carried out by Kivlin(1960), Fliegle and Kivlin (1962), Petrini (1966) andSingh (1966):

Kivlin surveyed 299 farmers in Pennsylvania tostudy the process of adoption of innovations andfound out that three features of relative advan-tage, compatibility and complexity have beeneffective on the adoption of innovations introducedto farmers.

Fliegle and Kivlin (1962) carried out research tostudy fifty innovations, which had been introducedto a group of Indian farmers. They concluded thatrelative advantage and observability of results hadpositive correlation with their rate of adoption.

Petrini (1966) studied the adoption of fourteeninnovations among Swedish farmers and foundthat complexity and relative advantage were eff-ective in accelerating the process of adoption ofinnovations.

Singh (1966) also observed 130 Canadian farmersto study their reactions to twenty-two innovationsintroduced to them. He concluded that relativeadvantage, complexity, trialability and observabil-ity of results had affected the rate of adoption ofinnovations and had positive correlations with it.Drucker (1994) emphasized simplicity, stated thatto be successful innovations should be simple anddeal with only one subject. Otherwise, they willconfuse their targeted community.

Surry (1997) stated that many researchers in thefield of instructional technology have based theirstudies on the theory of perceived attributes.

Researchers like Wyner (1974), Holloway (1977),and Eads (1984) found that the perception of theattributes, such as compatibility, complexity, andrelative advantage, play a significant role inadoption of new information technology in instruc-tion (Surry, 1997).

There are several authors who focused theirstudies on the relationship of features of eachinnovation to its rate of adoption. For example, Ash(1997) reported the results of a study carried out toidentify factors that had an impact on the applica-tion of information technology, which facilitatedend users searching. To study the effects of therelevant factors on the diffusion of online searchingwithin institutions he recognized fifteen factors andclustered them in three sets of attributes includinginnovation attributes, organizational attributes andmarketing attributes. The dependent variables ofthe study were internal diffusion (spread of diffu-sion) and infusion (depth of diffusion). The resultsshowed that the relationship between innovationsattributes and internal diffusion and infusion wassignificant. He concluded that successful diffusionof online searching was depended on visibility ofsystems, communication among, rewards to, andpeers of possible users.

Schoch and Hahn (1997) studied the electronicpublishing as an innovation. Electronic publicationcan be understood as a cluster of related innova-tions, which can be incorporated in differentcombinations. Cluster members individually and incombination, influence adopter perceptions of therelative advantage, complexity, compatibility, vis-ibility, and trialability of a particular implementa-tion. The results show that the change agentsinvolved with the project, succeeded in increasingthe observability, trialability and compatibility ofthe innovation for their users. However, complexityremained high and relative advantage decreased.These resulted in diversity of trials and the slowrate of diffusion of the innovation to date.

Prammanee (2003) studied the process of intro-duction and diffusion of the Internet in Thailand.His study showed that the features of the Internetaffecting its diffusion in Thailand (i.e. complexityand trialability) showed that the difficulty of usingthe Internet by the people, the high cost ofproviding computers and paying other costs foraccess to the network had negative effects on thediffusion of the Internet on this country.

Williamson, Wright, Burstein, and Schauder(2003) in a study evaluated content, potentialityand the use of some online databases that had beenintroduced to Australian public libraries in the stateof Victoria. By taking advantage of the factorsof innovations in Rogers’ theory, they studied the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1 Frequency (percentage) of priorities of relative advantage of electronic reference materials (n ¼ 41).

Priorities Firstattribute

Secondattribute

Thirdattribute

Fourthattribute

Fifthattribute

Sixthattribute

Seventhattribute

First 4 (9.8) 5 (12.2) 0 (0) 22 (53.7) 1 (2.4) 1 (2.4) 9 (22)Second 7 (17.1) 7 (17.1) 2 (4.9) 4 (9.8) 2 (4.9) 3 (7.3) 15 (36.6)Third 7 (17.1) 5 (12.2) 2 (4.9) 7 (17.1) 2 (4.9) 12 (29.3) 5 (12.2)Fourth 6 (14.6) 12 (29.3) 5 (12.2) 3 (7.3) 5 (12.2) 6 (14.6) 4 (9.8)Fifth 7 (17.1) 3 (7.3) 14 (34.1) 2 (4.9) 12 (29.3) 1 (2.4) 3 (7.3)Sixth 3 (7.3) 6 (14.6) 8 (19.5) 2 (4.9) 10 (24.4) 11 (26.8) 1 (2.4)Seventh 7 (17.1) 3 (7.3) 10 (24.4) 1 (2.4) 9 (22) 7 (17.1) 4 (9.8)Total 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100)

Adoption of electronic reference materials in academic libraries of Iran 55

factors which accelerated or slowed down theadoption of databases. The relative advantages,such as access to large amounts of authoritativeinformation, access to many full-text articles, thecompatibility of the databases with technicalconditions of the public libraries and the experi-ence of using the Internet encouraged librarypatrons to use databases. On the other hand, therewere some weaknesses, such as articles on specialsubjects, non-satisfactory subject coverage ofdatabases, the limited number of articles aboutAustralia, unfamiliarity of many users with search-ing in databases and differences of search strategyrequired from one database to another, wereproblems for diffusion of databases.

Al-Gahtani (2003) carried out a survey toinvestigate how perceived attributes of computertechnology influenced its rate of adoption in theworkplace in Saudi Arabia. He participated in hisstudy knowledge workers from all sectors of theeconomy. The results showed that attributes, suchas relative advantage, compatibility and observa-bility had played roles as positive correlatingfactors in computer adoption and complexity wasa negative factor.

He, Duan, Fu, and Li (2006) carried out a study toexamine the adoption of online e-payment bybusiness enterprises using Rogers’ relational modelof perceived innovation attributes and rate ofadoption. The findings indicated that only per-ceived compatibility had significant influenceon adoption of online e-payment technology byChinese companies. No significant impact wasobserved for other attributes.

Research methodology

A survey method was used on this study. Data werecollected by a structured questionnaire (seeAppendix). To formulate the questionnaire the

special features and features of electronic refer-ence materials were extracted from differentmonographs in the field of library and informationscience (Bopp & Smith, 2001, pp. 97–124; Joerger,1995; Kilbride, 2004; Nolan, 1999, pp. 111–41).Then they categorized in five groups on the basis ofthe diffusion of innovations theory. The question-naire was designed in two parts. The first partgathered information about the libraries and thesecond part sought the priorities of features basedon Rogers’ theory. To measure the validity of theresearch tool, the questionnaire was reviewed byacademic staff of the Department of Library andInformation Science and College of Education andPsychology of Shiraz University, Iran. The reliabilityof the questionnaire was measured by carrying outa test and retest. The Pearson Correlation testshowed a number equal to 0.998, which meant thatthe research tool was highly reliable.

Sixty-six questionnaires were sent to academiclibraries, which were affiliated with the Ministry ofScience, Research and Technology, to be filled byreference librarians or library managers. Forty-eight questionnaires were returned of which sevenwere dropped from the data file due to non-existence of electronic materials in these libraries.

Results

The results will be discussed according to differentfeatures of the electronic references materials.

Relative advantage

At the beginning, we will deal with features ofelectronic reference materials in the category ofrelative advantage. There are seven features (alsoreferred to as attributes) in this category whichwere ranked by respondents (see Table 1). These

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Z. Hayati, T. Jowkar56

features/attributes are:

1.

The possibility of using Boolean operators. 2. The possibility of searching in special fields. 3. The existence of links to authority files. 4. The convenience of information retrieval. 5. The existence of search history option. 6. The existence of links to hypertext and related

documents.

7. The accumulation of a large amount of informa-

tion in one CD or online database.

The selection of priority for each option is usuallypossible by looking at their relative frequencies.For instance, the relative frequencies shown inTable 1 give the highest ranked priorities to theconvenience of information retrieval (the fourthattribute) and to the accumulation of a largeamount of information in one CD or onlinedatabase (the seventh attribute), respectively.However, in designating the priority of the firstattribute, the possibility of using Boolean opera-tors, we faced a difficulty, because 17.1% ofrespondents chose second, third, fifth and seventhpriorities for this attribute, simultaneously. This

Table 2 Different attributes of relative advan-tage of electronic reference materials ranked bymeans.

Priority Relative advantage Mean

First Fourth attribute 72.13Second Seventh attribute 99.10Third Second attribute 133.76Fourth First attribute 144.82Fifth Sixth attribute 166.74Sixth Fifth attribute 193.74Seventh Third attribute 197.71

Table 3 Frequency (percentage) of priorities of observa

Priorities Firstattribute

Secondattribute

Thirdattribute

Fourtattrib

First 16 (39) 4 (9.8) 3 (7.3) 4 (9Second 10 (24.4) 11 (26.8) 7 (17.1) 3 (7Third 5 (12.2) 6 (14.6) 9 (22) 11 (2Fourth 4 (9.8) 4 (9.8) 6 (14.6) 10 (2Fifth 3 (7.3) 6 (14.6) 5 (12.2) 8 (1Sixth 2 (4.9) 5 (12.2) 7 (17.1) 4 (9Seventh 1 (2.4) 5 (12.2) 4 (9.8) 1 (2Total 41 (100) 41 (100) 41(100) 41 (1

problem was also repeated for other attributes. Tosolve this problem we carried out a Kruskal–Wallistest. The Kruskal–Wallis test is a non-parametricmethod suitable for testing differences amongthree or more groups of independent ordinaldata.

In this case, we have more than two groupsof attributes for each feature. To measure thedifferences among the ranked observations, thefollowing formula was used, in which n isthe number of observations or total sample size, jthe number of attributes in each feature, Rj thesum of the ranks for each group (here the sum ofthe ranks of attributes in each feature) and nj thenumber of scores in group:

H ¼12

nðnþ 1Þ

XR2j

nj� 3ðnþ 1Þ.

As a result, we had the mean rank for eachattribute according to the sum of priorities whichwere assigned to that attribute. Therefore, smallmean scores show higher ranks while highernumbers show lower ranks. In Table 2 the meansare ranked in ascending order. This table shows thatthe fourth attribute, the convenience of informa-tion retrieval, of the first factor, relative advan-tage, ranks highest with a mean score 72.13. Nexthighest is the seventh attribute, the accumulationof a large amount of information in one CD or in anonline database, with a mean score 99.1. The thirdattribute, the existence of links to authority filesand thesauri, has the lowest rank (mean score197.71).

To find out if these attributes are significantlydifferent, a Chi-Square test was carried out and theresult showed that they are significantly differentat probability level of 0.01:

Chi-square : 79:938; df : 6; Asymp: Sig: : 0:000.

bility of electronic reference materials (n ¼ 41).

hute

Fifthattribute

Sixthattribute

Seventhattribute

.8) 8 (19.5) 2 (4.9) 4 (9.8)

.3) 4 (9.8) 1 (2.4) 5 (12.2)6.8) 4 (9.8) 2 (4.9) 4 (9.8)4.4) 13 (31.7) 1 (2.4) 4 (9.8)9.5) 8 (19.5) 3 (7.3) 7 (17.1).8) 2 (4.9) 12 (29.3) 9 (22).4) 2 (4.9) 2 (48.8) 8 (19.5)00) 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Adoption of electronic reference materials in academic libraries of Iran 57

Observability

The second factor considered for electronic refer-ence materials is observabiltiy. This factor hasseven attributes (Table 3). Table 4 shows theranking of these attributes. The attributes for thisfactor are as follows:

1.

Shortening the time of searching. 2. Retrieval of a large number of results. 3. Access to full-texts in most situations. 4. Being a multi-user database. 5. Access to resources throughout the world. 6. Printing citations simultaneously. 7. Using several sources simultaneously.

Table 3 shows that the seventh priority (48.8%)and first priority (39%) have the highest relativefrequencies, respectively. These percentages be-long to the sixth attribute, the possibility ofprinting citations simultaneously, and the firstattribute, shortening the time of searching, re-spectively. For other attributes, the sums ofrelative frequencies for each priority are equal sothey cannot show definite priorities for eachattribute.

In order to show priorities for different attributesof the second factor, observability, a Kruskal–Wallis

Table 5 Frequency (percentage) of given priorities to threference materials (n ¼ 41).

Priorities Firstattribute

Secondattribute

First 17 (41.5) 7 (17.1)Second 4 (9.8) 5 (12.2)Third 8 (19.5) 12 (29.3)Fourth 3 (7.3) 7 (17.1)Fifth 9 (22) 10 (24.4)Total 41 (100) 41 (100)

Table 4 The ranking of attributes of observa-bility, by means.

Priority Observability Mean

First First attribute 81.09Second Fifth attribute 126.26Third Fourth attribute 134.22Fourth Second attribute 135.12Fifth Third attribute 143.13Sixth Seventh attribute 167.13Seventh Sixth attribute 221.05

test*** was carried out. Table 4 shows that the firstattribute, shortening the time of searching, andthe fifth attribute, accessing to resources through-out the world, with means 81.09 and 126.26 hadthe highest ranks, respectively. The sixth attribute,printing citations simultaneously, had the lowestrank with mean 221.05.

A significance test was carried out for sevenattributes of observability. Results showed that atthe probability level 0.01 there were significancedifferences among them:

Chi-square : 66:354; df : 6; Asymp: Sig: : 0:000.

Complexity, trialability and compatibility

The last factors to be discussed are complexity,trialability, and compatibility. Because of thelimited number of attributes to be discussed inthese three features all of them will be evaluatedtogether. The features (attributes) that fall underthese three factors include:

1.

e co

Thiatt

422645

41

Fair price of electronic reference services.

2. Simple interface and user-friendliness. 3. The existence of a help option. 4. The experience of using databases in a trial

period.

mplexity, compatibility & trial ability of electronic

rdribute

Fourthattribute

Fifthattribute

(9.8) 3 (7.3) 10 (24.4)(53.7) 7 (17.1) 3 (7.3)(14.6) 9 (22) 6 (14.6)(9.8) 14 (34.1) 13 (31.7)(12.2) 8 (19.5) 9 (22)(100) 41 (100) 41 (100)

Table 6 The ranking of attributes of complexity,compatibility & trial ability by means.

Priority Complexityy Mean

First First attribute 86Second Third attribute 87Third Second attribute 111Fourth Fifth attribute 111Fifth Fourth attribute 120

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 7 Frequency (percentage) of preventive factors (n ¼ 41).

Priorities Firstattribute

Secondattribute

Thirdattribute

Fourthattribute

Fifthattribute

Sixthattribute

First 3 (7.3) 2 (4.9) 3 (7.3) 31 (75.6) 1 (2.4) 1 (2.4)Second 9 (22) 4 (9.8) 13 (31.7) 6 (14.6) 8 (19.5) 1 (2.4)Third 12 (29.3) 12 (29.3) 7 (17.1) 2 (4.9) 5 (12.2) 3 (7.3)Fourth 8 (19.5) 11 (26.8) 16 (39) 1 (2.4) 4 (9.8) 1 (2.4)Fifth 3 (7.3) 5 (12.2) 2 (4.9) 0 (0) 17 (41.5) 13 (31.7)Sixth 6 (14.6) 7 (17.1) 0 (0) 1 (2.4) 6 (14.6) 22 (53.7)Total 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100) 41 (100)

Table 8 The ranking of barriers by means.

Z. Hayati, T. Jowkar58

5.

Priority Barriers Mean

First Fourth attribute 38.99Second Third attribute 103.98Third First attribute 119.89Fourth Second attribute 136.85Fifth Fifth attribute 148.72Sixth Sixth attribute 192.57

The experience of work with a computer and theInternet.

Table 5 shows that the relative frequencies of thethird attribute, the existence of a help option, andfirst attribute, fair price of electronic referencesources, in the second and first priorities are 53.7%and 41.5%, respectively. These frequencies com-pared with other priorities given to other attri-butes, differ in significant ways. Therefore, thepriorities of these attributes are exactly defined.However, the priorities of other attributes becauseof their similar frequencies are not definable.

To show the priorities of other attributes aKruskal–Wallis test was carried out. Table 6 showsthat the first and the second attributes, with means86 and 87, have the highest ranks, respectively. Thefifth attribute, the experience of work withcomputer and the Internet, with mean 120 hasthe lowest rank.

A Chi-square test carried out for these attributesshows that at the probability level 0.01, they aresignificantly different:

Chi-square : 11:674; df : 4; Asymp: Sig: : 0:000.

Preventive factors

To study the preventive factors, which retard theadoption of the electronic reference materials, themain attributes were extracted from five factorsas cited in Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory.The features considered to prevent adoption of thistechnology include the following:

1.

The existence of different search strategies indifferent databases.

2.

The lack of confidence on information retrievedfrom the Internet and databases.

3.

The difficulty of searching in some electronicreference materials.

4.

The lack of sufficient expertise in using compu-ters.

5.

The inability of the library to introduce theelectronic materials.

6.

The potentials of electronic reference materialswere not as expected.

These attributes were prioritized by respon-dents. The results are shown in Table 7.

According to the relative frequencies in Table 7,the priorities of the forth attribute (75.6%), thelack of sufficient expertise in using computer, thesixth attribute (53.7%), the potentials of electronicreference material were not as expected, and thefifth attribute (41.5%), the inability of library tointroduce electronic reference materials, are high-er than other attributes. These three priorities aresignificantly distinguished from others.

However, to find out the exact priorities ofattributes and ranking them a Kruskal–Wallis testwas carried out. The results in Table 8 show thatthe fourth attribute, the lack of sufficient exper-tise in using a computer (mean 38.9), and the thirdattribute, the difficulty of searching in someelectronic reference materials (mean 103.98),have the highest ranks, respectively. The lowestrank with (mean 192.57) belongs to the sixthattribute, the potentials of electronic referencematerials were not realized.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Adoption of electronic reference materials in academic libraries of Iran 59

The Chi-square test for six preventive attributes,at the probability level 0.01 showed that they weresignificantly different:

Chi-square : 15:37; df : 6; Asymp: Sig: : 0:000.

Discussion

Rogers enumerated five factors for every innovationthat have effective impact on its pace of adoption.This study shows that these factors are observablein the adoption of electronic reference materials.However, as stated by Barnett (cited in: Rogers,1995, p. 212), these different attributes of electro-nic reference materials that are defined for eachfactor influence their adoption. The results suggestthat these attributes and ranking of their factorsare highly dependent on users’ information seekingbehavior.

For example, in relative advantage, the fourthattribute, the convenience of information retrie-val, and the seventh attribute, the accumulation ofa large amount of information in one CD or in anonline database, have the highest ranks. In obser-vability, the first attribute, shortening the time ofsearching, and the fifth attribute, access toresources throughout the world, receive the high-est ranks. In features such as complexity, trial-ability and compatibility, the first attribute, fairprice of electronic reference sources, and the thirdattribute, the existence of help option, have thehighest ranks. The most important barriers toadoption of these materials are the fourth attri-bute, the lack of sufficient expertise in usingcomputer, and the third attribute, the difficulty ofsearching in some electronic reference materials.A detailed discussion on these results on the basisof Rogers’ theory and Kruskal–Wallis test is pre-sented in the following subsections.

The factors which encourage adoption ofelectronic reference materials

Relative advantage

The attributes of the electronic reference materi-als that received the highest number of positiveresponses from subjects given the Kruskal–Wallistest are the fourth attribute, the convenience ofinformation retrieval; the seventh attribute, accu-mulation of a large volume of information on acompact disc or on an online database; the secondattribute, the possibility of searching in special

fields; the first attribute, possibility of applyingBoolean operators; the sixth attribute, the ex-istence of links to hypertext or related documents;the fifth attribute, the existence of search historyoption; and the third attribute, existence of linksto authority files and thesauri.

Users and librarians have had unfavorable ex-periences when searching traditional referencematerials accumulated in libraries. Searching incard catalogs was time consuming and necessitatedlibrary skills. Electronic materials, whether indatabases or in electronic journals, provided usersmore understandable options for the search andretrieval of information. Users realized thatsources can be found in databases and on theInternet to answer their questions and be used intheir research. Users of electronic materials greatlyappreciated the large amount of data provided bydatabases or CDs, especially when they referred topeer-reviewed journals.

However, the fact that users failed or neglectedto take advantage of some important attributes ofelectronic reference materials, such as attributenumber 5, the existence of search history option,and attribute number 6, the existence of links toauthority files and thesauri, is frustrating. Theseattributes save time, increase precision of search-ing, and are unavailable in print reference sources,but users were often indifferent to them. This maybe because of users’ unfamiliarity with theseimportant attributes of electronic reference mate-rials. The information seeking behaviors of usershad a significant role that caused most of them tosearch for information in a pre-patterned method.Users usually failed to use the full range of facilitiesprovided for them in a database. For example,searching authority files on the basis of subject andnames was not a part of the users’ informationseeking behavior. As a result it received the lowestrank in priorities assigned to different attributes ofelectronic reference materials.

Observability

The attributes which had the highest ranking inpromoting adoption of electronic reference mate-rials are the first attribute, shortening the time ofsearching; the fifth attribute, accessing resourcesthroughout the world; the forth attribute, beingmulti-users databases; the second attribute, re-trieval of a large amount of results; the thirdattribute, accessing to full-texts in most situa-tions; the seventh attribute, using several sources

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Z. Hayati, T. Jowkar60

simultaneously; and the sixth attribute, printingcitations simultaneously.

The highest ranks in the Kruskal–Wallis test wereassigned to attributes one, five, and four becauseof the time pressure academic staff and postgrad-uate students who use electronic resources experi-ence. They preferred this feature of electronicresources that a powerful search engine provided.These are important considerations for users whocommunicate with other scholars internationallywhose works they wish to consult through data-bases and networks. In addition, Iranian academiclibraries are faced with a lack of funds to collectnon-Persian resources. Moreover, document deliv-ery and resource sharing through inter-library loansand by means of surface mail are very timeconsuming for academic libraries and their users.So they prefer to use networks and electronicresources that do not have these problems.

However, to our surprise, the third attribute,accessing to full-texts in most situations, rankedonly no. 5. This may be because the databases thatare at hand are not supplying full-texts for allcitations or because they do not cover all subjectareas evenly. In addition, subscription of full-textdatabases is expensive and many academic librariescannot afford the cost.

Complexity, trialability and compatibility

The priorities of attributes on the basis of Krus-kal–Wallis test are the first attribute, fair costof electronic reference resources; the third attri-bute, the existence of help options; the secondattribute, simple interface and user-friendliness;the fifth attribute, the experience of work withcomputers and the Internet; and the forth attri-bute, the experience of using database in trialperiod.

Assigning the highest priority to attribute numberone, fair price of electronic reference sources,does not mean that databases are cheap or thatacademic libraries pay subscriptions from their ownbudget. In most universities, subscriptions paid fordatabases use are not paid directly from thelibrary’s budget, but are met by administrativeofficials (known as Deputies of Research) who areoutside the library. The Ministry of Science,Research and Technology also pays subscriptionfees for small and minor universities or gives themsubsidies to subscribe to their databases.

The second rank was assigned to the thirdfeature, the existence of help options, becausemany users are not familiar with using electronicreference materials. In addition, librarians are

usually busy with their own duties and have notime to search for all users. In addition, the secondattribute, simple interface and user-friendliness, isone of the valuable features of databases whichsimplifies locating wanted resources for users,especially those who are not familiar with searchstrategy.

However, in many cases it is usual for libraries tobe granted a period to assess the utility of proposeddatabases. This trial period enables them tobecome familiar with different potentials of data-bases that eventually may lead to their subscrip-tions. Placing the attribute, the experience ofusing databases trial period, in the last place is alittle surprising.

The preventive factors against adoptionof electronic reference materials

The most important factors which cause problemsfor adoption of electronic reference materials, andwhich also had the highest ranks in the Kruskal–-

Wallis test, are the fourth attribute, the lack ofsufficient experience in using computer; the thirdattribute, the difficulty of searching in someelectronic reference materials; the first attribute,the existence of different search strategies indifferent databases; the second attribute, the lackof confidence on information retrieved from theInternet and databases; the fifth attribute, theinability of library in introducing electronic re-ference materials; and the six attribute, thepotentials of electronic reference materials werenot as expected.

Problems one to three are related to complexityfeatures while problems four and six are related toadaptability features. According to the responsesto the survey, the most important problems thatmake the adoption of electronic reference materi-als difficult stem from unfamiliarity of academiclibrarians and users with computers and databasesearching.

Although most academic libraries are computer-ized and many academic staff and students haveaccess to computers and networks, either fromtheir offices or computer labs, working with thesetechnologies is still a problem. This is mostlybecause of the changing nature of informationtechnology and network applications. In addition,databases do not use similar interfaces and searchstrategies. These factors make the many techni-calities of working with databases difficult for usersto learn and remember.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Adoption of electronic reference materials in academic libraries of Iran 61

Conclusions

The diffusion of innovations theory shows thesignificant impact specific features of electronicreference materials have on their adoption. As aresult, these factors should be identified andintroduced to librarians and users.

The results of this study show that the mosteffective attributes of electronic reference sourcesare: their ability to facilitate information retrievaland accumulation of large volumes of information ona compact disc or on an online database (Relativeadvantage), shortening the time of searching andaccessing a variety of information sources all overthe world (Observability), and the fair cost ofresources and the existence of help option in allpages (Complexity, Compatibility & Trialability).

What impedes adoption of these kinds of infor-mation sources are lack of sufficient experience inworking with computers among subjects of thestudy and the complexity of searching in some

electronic databases. These factors are related tocomplexity and compatibility features of electronicreference sources and databases. Indeed, it shouldbe accepted that searching in these sources is noteasy for all users. This survey’s results suggest thatusers’ previous experience and knowledge areoften not applicable to these new informationtechnologies.

To reduce the impact of negative factors it isnecessary to take some initiatives and familiarizeadoptive groups with different aspects of theseresources: teaching search strategies, appointingexperienced librarians to supervise and assist userswith their searches, setting up workshops, andproviding web-based instructions. The results ofthis survey indicate that these processes are verycomplex. To take full advantages of electronicresources it is advisable to draw up programs tofacilitate their adoption and the understanding ofthem. In addition, subsidies to targeted groupswould help expand access to databases.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Z. Hayati, T. Jowkar62

Appendix. Questionnaire2

Please, answer the following questions:

I. Identifications:

a. Name of the library: ……………………………………………

b. Affiliated university/College: …………………………………

II. Please, define which of the followings are you?

Head of the Library Reference librarian

III. Which degree do you hold?

PhD MA/ MS MA/ BS

Associate-Diploma Others (please, specify): ….

IV. What is your field of study?

Library and Information Science

Others (please, specify):………………………………………………..…………

V. Do you have a reference collection in your library?

Yes No

VI. Do you have any electronic reference materials in your library (i.e.

CDs or Online Databases)?

Yes No

(If you answer the above question with ‘yes’,please, go through other

questions, in other case, no)

VII. When did your library provide the electronic reference materials for

the first time?

CD-ROMs:………………………

Online-Databases: ………………

VIII. Here is a list of electronic reference materials advantages for

libraries. Please, define which of them encourage your library more to

use this kind of materials?(Use numbers 1-7 to rank the options.

Number1, shows the lowest importance (priority) )

The possibility of using Boolean operators

The possibility of searching in special fields

The existence of links to authority files and thesauri

The convenience of information retrieval

The existence of search history option

The existence of links to hypertext and related documents

The accumulation of a large amount of information inone CD or in an online database

Relative Advantages of E-Reference Sources Priority

IX. Here is a list of electronic reference materials’ Observable Results for

libraries. Please, define which of them encourage your library more to

use this kind of materials. (Use numbers 1-7 to rank the options.

Number 1, shows the lowest importance (priority) )

Observability of E-Reference Sources Priority

Shortening the time of searching

Retrieval of a large number of results

Access to full- texts in most situations

Being multi-user database

Access to resources throughout the world

Printing citations simultaneously

Using several sources simultaneously

X. Please, define which option was more important for your library and

users to use this kind of materials. (Use numbers 1-5 to rank the

options. Number 1, showsthe lowest importance (priority) )

Complexity, Trial ability and Compatibility of

E- Reference SourcesPriority

Fair price of electronic reference sources

Simple interface and user friendliness

The existence of help option

The experience of using databases in trial period

The experience of work with computer and the Internet

XI. Here is a list ofcommon barriers that mostly prevent libraries to offer

electronic reference materials in a wide range. Please, define which

of them affect your library more? (Use numbers 1-6 to rank the

options. Number 1, showsthe lowestimportance(priority) )

Preventive Factors in Using E- Reference Sources Priority

The existence of different search strategies in differentdatabases

The lack of confidence on information retrieved fromthe Internet and databases

The difficulty of searching in some electronic referencematerials

The lackof sufficient expertiseinusing computerThe inability of library in introducing electronicreference materials

The potentials of electronic reference materials were notas expected

XII. Please, attach a list of your electronic reference materials (Persian &

Non Persian) to the questionnaire.

References

Al-Gahtani, Said S. (2003). Computer technology adoption inSaudi Arabia: Correlates of perceived innovation attributes.Information Technology for Development, 10(1), 57–69.

Ash, Joan. S. (1997). Factors affecting the diffusion of thecomputer-based patient record. In Proceedings of American

2This questionnaire is extracted from a large one. If you needto see the latter, please contact the authors at their emailaddresses.

medical informatics association fall symposium (AMIA’97)(pp. 682–6), Nashville, TN.

Bopp, Richard E., & Smith, Linda C. (2001). Reference andinformation services: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York:Libraries Unlimited.

Borgatta, Edgar F., & Montgomery, Rhonda J. V. (2000).Encyclopedia of sociology, Vol. 1. New York: MacmillanReference.

Cheong, Weng Hin (2002). Internet adoption in macao. JCMC.7(2). Retrieved March 20, 2006 from /http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue2/index.htmlS.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Adoption of electronic reference materials in academic libraries of Iran 63

Diffusion of Innovations Theory. (1998). Retrieved June 15, 2004from /http://www.Ciadvertising.Org/studies/student/98_fall/theory/hornor/paperS.

Drucker, Peter F. (1994). Innovation and entrepreneurship:Practice and principles. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.

Eads, Gerald Milton (1984). Manipulation of innovation attri-butes and impaction attitude formation. Ph.D. thesis.Kansas: Kansas State University /http://www.sssgrp.comS.

Fliegle, Fredrick C., & Kivlin, Joseph E. (1962). Farm practiceattributes and adoption rates. Social Forces, 40, 364–370.

He, Q., Duan, Y., Fu, Z., & Li, D. (2006). An innovation adoption:Study of online e-payment in Chinese companies. Journal ofElectronic Commerce in Organizations, 4(1), 48–69.

Holland, Matt (1997). Diffusion of innovations theories and theirrelevance to understanding the role of librarians whenintroducing users to networked information. ElectronicLibrary, 15(5), 389–394.

Holloway, Robert Evan (1977). Perceptions of an innovation:Syracuse University project advance. Ph. D. thesis, SyracuseUniversity.

Joerger, Thilo (1995). Educational uses of CD-ROM technology.Retrieved November 15, 2004 from /http://aci.mta.ca/TheUmbrella/TTTF/CDROM.htmlS.

Kivlin, Joseph E. (1960). Characteristics associated with rate ofadoption. Ph.D. thesis. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania StateUniversity: In Rogers Everret M. (1995). Diffusion of innova-tions (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Kilbride, William (2004).Why bother with digitization? Users andusing digital resources. Retrieved November 15, 2004 from/http://ahds.ac.uk/history/creating/information-papers/why-bother-digitisingS.

Martin, Rebbeca R. (2001). Restructuring the University of Vermontlibraries: Challenges, opportunities and change. Retrieved July20, 2004 from /http://www.ala.Org/acrl/pil/martin.HtmlS.

Nolan, Christopher W. (1999). Managing the reference collec-tion. New York: American Library Association.

Petrini, Frank (1966). The rate of adoption of selectedagricultural innovations. Uppsala: Agricultural College of

Sweden. Report 53. In Surry, Daniel W. (1997). Diffusiontheory and instructional technology. Retrieved March 20,2006 from /http://intro.base.org/docs/diffusionS.

Prammanee, Noppadol (2003). A critical analysis of adoption andutilization of the Internet in Thailand for educationalpurposes. Retrieved August 7, 2004 from /http://first-monday.org/issues/issue8_1/prammanee/index.htmlS.

Rogers, Everret M. (1986). Diffusion of innovations. New York:Free Press.

Rogers, Everret M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.).New York: Free Press.

Schoch, Natalie A., & Hahn, Karla L. (1997). Applying diffusiontheory to electronic publishing: A conceptual framework forexamining issues and outcomes. Journal of the AmericanSociety for Information Science, 34, 5–13.

Singh, Ram M. (1966).Characteristics of farm innovationsassociated with the rate of adoption. Guelph, OntarioAgricultural Extension Education Report, Vol. 14.

Surry, Daniel W. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructionaltechnology. Retrieved March 20, 2006 from /http://intro.base.org/docs/diffusion/S.

Walker, Jill Cohen (1999). Diffusion of innovations theoryapplied: The adoption of digital on-demand technology bybook publishers and printers. M.Sc. thesis. University ofTennessee, Knoxville. Retrieved September 25, 2005 fromEbsco Academic Search Premier.

Weiner, Sharon Gray (2003). Resistance to change in libraries:Application of communication theories. Portal: Libraries andAcademy, 3(1), 69.

Williamson, Kristy, Wright, Steven, Burstein, Frada & Schauder,Don (2003). Adoption of online databases in public libraries:An Australian case study. Libries, 13(2). Retrieved September19, 2004 from /http://libres.curtin.edu.au/libres13n2/index.htmS.

Wyner, N.B. (1974). A study of diffusion of innovation:Measuring perceived attributes of an innovation thatdetermine rate of adoption. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 35, 3583A.