Exploring copyright knowledge in relation to experience and education level among academic librarians in Kenya

The International Information & Library Review (2012) 44, 40e51

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ i i l r

Exploring copyright knowledge in relation toexperience and education level among academiclibrarians in Kenya

Musa Wakhungu Olaka a,*, Denice Adkins b

aHolocaust and Genocide Studies Center, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue LIB 122, Tampa,FL 33620, United Statesb School of Information Science and Learning Technologies, University of Missouri, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia,MO 65211, United States

KEYWORDSCopyright;Librarians;Librarian education;University libraries

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 57E-mail addresses: musaolaka@usf.

1057-2317/$ - see front matter ª 201doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2012.01.005

Abstract Since the year 2001, Kenya’s copyright regime has extensively been shaped byTrade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement; World IntellectualProperty Organization Copyright Treaty; Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA); and The Coto-nou Agreement, which have advocated for effective copyright administration and managementstructures in addition to stiffer penalties for those who violate copyright laws. Despite betteradministrative structures being put in place, copyright infringement in Kenya has persisted.Being able to balance the needs of rights owners and information consumers becomes a criticalrole librarians have to play. Knowledge about copyright, thus, becomes critical. Despite thefact that librarians in Kenya are not a homogenous group, how knowledgeable the differentlibrarian cadres are concerning copyright issues is least understood. The raison d’etre for thisstudy is to find out whether different cadres of librarians based on academic qualificationsdiffer in the level of knowledge on copyright issues. A questionnaire was used to collect data.Results indicate no statistically significant difference in self-reported knowledge of copyrightamong the five librarian cadres based on their education level and neither is there a statisti-cally significant difference based on librarians’ years of service. Statistically significant differ-ences among the five librarian cadres exist when we compare “tested knowledge” of copyrightissues. Evidence of insufficient mastery of provisions in the Kenyan copyright law does exist.ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Information is a critical component in socio-economic andcultural development and is especially critical in the

38231053.edu (M.W. Olaka), adkinsde@miss

2 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

education sector of any country. Nonetheless, it can beowned and traded like any other commodity (May, 2002).Between the year 2002 and 2008, product export fromcreative industries worldwide grew from $205 billion to

ouri.edu (D. Adkins).

.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iilr.2012.01.005

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10572317

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/iilr



Exploring copyright knowledge among academic librarians in Kenya 41

$407 billion (United Nations, 2010). This is an indicator ofthe high stakes and value associated with creative indus-tries and has led to production, dissemination, access,consumption and ownership of information productsbecoming highly regulated and controlled through the useof intellectual property rights mechanisms with copyrightbeing one of them.

Proponents of strict copyright regulation and control ofinformation products argue that without such measures,information creators will not have the incentive to continuecreating more information products (Carlaw, Oxley, &Walker, 2006; Park & Ginarte, 1997). However, this argu-ment has been challenged on the grounds that strictcopyright enforcement does not protect the interest ofmarginalized societies (Andreasson, 2006). Opponents ofstrict copyright mechanisms suggest that in developingcountries such as Kenya, strict enforcement of copyrightwill prevent developing countries from growing theircopyright industries (Nicholson, 2006). The most radicalview on the role of copyright in society is that taken bySmeirs (2000) who wants copyright to be abolished becauseit is being used as a tool by developed nations to margin-alize people in developing countries.

Kenya is a developing country in eastern Africa. In 2000,50% of the population was in poverty and in 2008, 40% wereunemployed (World Factbook, 2011). Most of the peoplelive a communitarian life where sharing of what one owns isa virtue. This characteristic rubs rights owners the wrongway on many occasions, as Kenya is a net importer ofinformation products.

Table 1 demonstrates that Kenya is a net importer ofcreative industry products despite steady growth of itsindustry. In 2010, the net worth estimate of Kenya’s text-book industry was KSH 10 billion ($14,285,714). However,35% of its estimated earnings are lost through book piracy(Ngunjiri, 2010). In the year 2000 alone, the Kenyan text-book industry lost KSH 8 million ($114,285) due to piracy(Wa Micheni, 2008).

Copyright infringement is common and has persisted overthe years in Kenya (Ngunjiri, 2010; Wachira, 2008). This isdespite stronger copyright control and regulatory mecha-nisms such as stricter laws, use of technology protectivemeasures, use of licenses, better administration, andenforcement that have been put in place over the years.Kenyan universities and academic libraries in particular, arebeing singled out by KOPIKEN, Kenya’s reprographic mate-rials licensing body, as facilitating copyright infringementand not doing enough to curb infringement.

Table 1 Import and export of creative industry goods inKenya.

Goods Export in$million

Import in$millions

2002 2008 2002 2008

Total for creativeindustry

11 58 62 135

Publishing 3 29 28 56Books 1 9 12 17

Source: UNCTAD Statistical Database, 2011.

Problem statement

Librarians’ awareness and knowledge of copyright has notbeen systematically studied in developing countries, andKenya is no exception. Studying Kenyan libraries is compli-cated by the fact that Kenya has five different cadres oflibrarians that are based on education. Librarian cadres existfor those holding doctoral degrees, master’s degrees, bach-elor’s degrees, diplomas, and certificates; librarians in thesecadres usually have very different administrative and tech-nical responsibilities. Because librarians in different cadreshave different responsibilities, there is limited under-standing of what members in each cadre know about copy-right or may experience when they are faced with copyrightqueries. Despite the large number of cadres, librarians tendto be regarded by the library-using community as onehomogeneous group, and thedifferences betweencadres arenot evident to library users.

This study will demonstrate Kenyan librarians’ knowledgeof copyright issues, and whether that knowledge differsbased on educational qualifications or duration of service.This understanding will become the starting point fordesigning effective strategies to curb copyright infringementin academic institutions in Kenya. In addition, it will be anindicator of the extent to which teaching of intellectualproperty rights ought to be emphasized in library schoolcurriculum in Kenya.

Research questions investigated were: Does level ofcopyright awareness/knowledge differ among the variouscadres of academic librarians in Kenya? Does level ofcopyright awareness differ among the various academiclibrarians in Kenya based on the duration a librarian hasworked in libraries?

Review of the literature

Kenya and the global intellectual property rightsregime

Copyright enforcement in Kenya has been a challenge.Enforcement was originally entrusted to the AttorneyGeneral’s Office, which is plagued with a complex bureau-cracy and insufficient resources to carry out this mandate.The globalization of the information society broughtconcomitant growth in the development of copyrightinstruments employed in the global governance of produc-tion, processing, access, storage, dissemination andconsumption of information. To be part of the global intel-lectual property dispensation, Kenya became a signatory ontwo intellectual property instruments that were intended totry and create a homogenous copyright regime across theworld. These were the Trade-Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty Rights (TRIPS) and the World Intellectual PropertyOrganization (WIPO) copyright treaty, signed by Kenya in1994 and 1996 respectively. The adoption of these twoinstruments meant Kenya had to write and implement morestringent copyright laws to ally themselves to the interna-tional copyright regime that required better administrationand enforcementmechanism of copyright at a national level.

Non-compliance with any aspect of these internationalcopyright agreementsmay drive developed nations to invoke

42 M.W. Olaka, D. Adkins

threats of using trade sanctions against Kenya or risk thecountry being blacklisted by institutions such as the Office ofthe United States Trade Representative. Indeed, the Inter-national Intellectual PropertyAlliance (IIPA) onceblacklistedKenya in 2006 due topiracy of intellectual property products.

To enhance efficiency and effectiveness in copyrightmanagement, Parliament drafted the current Copyright Actof 2001 that came into force effective February 1, 2003.Administrative organizations and structures were enshrinedin the Act to facilitate implementation of this law, which ledto the establishment of the Kenya Copyright Board. Since itsinception in July 2003, the Board has achieved relativesuccess compared to what the Attorney General’s Office hadbeen able to achieve previously. The Kenya Copyright Act of2001 led to better copyright administration structures put inplace, more stringent and punitive clauses, development ofinstitutional policies on copyright, and increased use oftechnology protective measures among other efforts. InFebruary 2010, the Kenya Copyright Board held a stake-holders’ conference to review the Copyright Act of 2001, atwhich more punitive measures were suggested includingpunishment for the infringement of a creator’s moral rights.

Having stringent national copyright laws in developingcountries has never gone unchallenged. May (2006) arguesthat such stringent laws favor developed nations and havestunted African countries’ copyright industries because theyand other developing countries normally end up paying hugeamounts of money to developed nations in fees and royaltiesaccruing from using intellectual property products.

Funding and academic libraries in Kenya

Academic libraries are the most vibrant and fastest growingtype of libraries in Kenya. They tend to have larger and moreheavily used collections, have better physical structures, arebetter funded, and employ a diverse and highly qualifiedstaff. Library user populations in these libraries have expo-nentially grown due to an increase in student enrollmentwhen universities introduced parallel degree programs in thelate 1990s and the establishment of more private universitiesafter the year 2000. In the1990s, public university enrollmentaveraged 10,000 students per year. By comparison, in 2011,public universities enrolled 24,000 government-sponsoredstudents and an equal number in the parallel degreeprograms (i.e. privately-sponsored students). Currently thereare over 100,000 students in Kenyan Universities and thenumber is likely to grow to 160,000 students in the year 2015.However, library infrastructure inmost of the universities hasnot kept pace with student enrollment and universityexpansion. There has been a reduction in per capita fundingof academic libraries, especially public universities thattraditionally relied on government funding (Kavulya, 2006).Per capita funding of libraries in private universities andcolleges has not always been steady although it is slightlybetter than in public university libraries.

This funding reduction means that Kenyan academiclibraries cannot effectively support the teaching, learningand research functions of universities by providing infor-mation to the university community. In the financial year2000/2001, four university libraries spent approximately$567,142 on books and journals (Kavulya, 2006). At that

time, the enrollment for those four institutions wasapproximately 30,000 students. The reduction in govern-ment funding of academic libraries also means that vendorsof books and other information products are not likely tosell as much, which in turn means reduced income forpublishers and fewer royalties for content creators. Insuf-ficient funding has created an environment where it is notuncommon to see whole books being photocopied in largenumbers. Normally, the reason given is that the library doesnot have the book or the library has the book but too manystudents are looking for that single copy at the same time.

Implementing Kenya’s current copyright law

By 2008, the Kenya Copyright Board had licensed three col-lecting agencies. TheMusic Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK)collects royalties for artists when it comes to performing andplaying music in public. In 2008, this agency collected KSH13.8 million ($184,000) (Wa Micheni, 2008). The Kenya Asso-ciation of Music Producers collects royalties on behalf ofproducers of audio recording. The third agency is KOPIKEN,a reprographic rights organization established in 1994. Copyshops and small scale photocopying businesses had operatedfor a long time, but it was only in 2007 that KOPIKEN licensedits first copy shop in Kenya (KOPIKEN, 2009). As a whole, theamount Kenya paid out to other countries in royalties andlicense fees from creative industries rose from $10 million in2002 to $33 million in 2008 (United Nations, 2010).

Tension now exists between KOPIKEN and academiclibraries in Kenya. Librarians perceive KOPIKEN as coercingthem to pay exorbitant fees, though KOPIKEN does notexplain how they are going to account for or distribute theroyalties to content creators or rights owners. The conse-quence of library users infringing on copyrighted materialshas come to rest on librarians’ shoulders, and it becomesimperative that librarians know about copyright issues.Librarians need to be able to balance the need for access toinformation and the protection of rights owners.

Perceptions of librarians’ knowledge aboutcopyright

A handful of studies from developed Western nations havetried to compare differences that exist in awareness ofcopyright provisions among staff in academic institutions.Cox (1998) compared self-perceptions of principals,educators, and librarians on awareness of copyright provi-sions and compliance with the principle of fair use in anacademic library in the United States of America (USA). Outof the three groups of staff working in an academic insti-tution, librarians were perceived to be the most knowl-edgeable about copyright provisions. Gould, Lipinski, andBuchanan (2005) used peer assessment and found thatadministrators of research libraries in USA were perceivedto have a higher level of awareness of copyright provisionsin the 1976 USA Copyright Act than other library staff atthose research libraries. Ratings from librarian peers sug-gested that 73.6% of library administrators were perceivedas having high to very high awareness, whereas only 54.3%of other librarians were perceived as having so. However,only 57.3% of library administrators and 42.6% of general


library staff were rated as having high or very high levels offamiliarity with provision in the Copyright Act. Williamson(1992) surveyed 151 university educators in the UnitedStates and found that copyright infringement occurs due tolack of awareness of copyright provisions. Smith et al.(2006) showed that 62% of faculty in an academic institu-tion in the United States had little or no knowledge ofcopyright. In developed nations, it appears that the librarycommunity is regarded as a guide or model for copyrightissues. No such research has been done in Kenya.

The weakness with most of these studies is that theytend to rely on peer perception and rating regarding howknowledgeable a librarian is about the various copyrightprovisions. Using peer rating is best feasible when donewith small groups of librarians because such rating tends tobe highly subjective. Despite the diversity of librarians interms of experience, education and specialization indifferent aspects of the library, many studies that haverelied on peer perceptions have looked at librarians as onehomogenous group, a perspective that has restricted ourunderstanding about librarians.

Importance of expertise

Education attainment and duration of service is assumed tohave some bearing on decision making and problem solving.The most common assumption is that the higher theeducation level or the more experience one attains on thejob, the greater the chance that one will make better andmore informed decisions. For example, patients who wereattended to by nurses holding a bachelor’s degree hada lesser chance of dying compared to those attended to bynurses with lesser qualifications (Aiken, Clarke, Sloane,Lake, & Cheney, 2008).

Experts and novices solve problems differently (Ahmed &Christensen, 2009). Experts tend to use analogies, especiallywhen presented with a novel problem situation. They easilypick up cues that can help them solve the problem (Klein,1997). They also have a wealth of knowledge of prior casesthat generally support easy transfer of knowledge from oneenvironment to another. In order to attain peak performance,

Table 2 Librarian population per cadre.

University pseudonym Ph.D.holders

Master’s degreeholders

Account Hasibu University 0 2Elisha University 2 3James University 1 7Katherine University 0 2Mwanzo University 0 15Nyamo University 0 2Nyota University 0 8Obukosia University 1 4Rais Hayati University 1 12Tabibu University 0 2Ukulima University 0 5Veve University 0 3Warembo University 0 0Zadock University 1 1

6 65

Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) argue that one needs 10 years ofdeliberate practice. Years worked is a catalyst in developingexpertise, because deliberate practice is critical in solvingproblems. However, it is not known whether the duration anacademic librarian has worked in libraries in Kenya hasa bearing on awareness and knowledge of copyright issues.

Procedures

Methods

A general survey was distributed to a large sample of librar-ians in Kenya. This survey included both fact-checking “test”questions and perception-based questions (See Appendix forsurvey tool). After the survey, selected respondents fromeach cadre were interviewed using a critical incident tech-nique in addition to a think-aloud protocol were utilized.

Context

Data was collected in libraries of 14 universities that arebased in Nairobi, Kenya. These libraries are Africa NazareneUniversity, Aga Khan University, Catholic University ofEastern Africa, Daystar University, Inoorero University,Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology,KCA University, Kenya Methodist University, KenyattaUniversity, Kiriri Women’s University of Science and Tech-nology, Pan African Christian University, StrathmoreUniversity, United States International University, andUniversity of Nairobi. To maintain confidentiality, universitynames were randomized and pseudonyms assigned. Table 2shows the number of librarians in each of the 14 universitiesin Nairobi and the cadre/highest qualification in library andinformation science attained by the library staff.

Participants and sampling

The five levels/cadres of librarians are based on the highesteducation qualification they hold in library and informationscience education. Certificate holders study for two years,

Bachelor’s degreeholders

Diplomaholders

Certificateholders

Total

4 6 0 12

1 6 17 29

1 4 4 17

1 2 0 5

20 40 7 82

3 1 2 8

1 18 0 27

1 11 0 17

6 37 4 60

2 2 0 6

1 1 0 7

5 3 0 11

0 1 0 1

6 4 1 13

53 136 35 295


and diploma level holders study for three years. Bachelor’sdegree level holders study for four years. Master’s degreeholders take at least two years after conferment of thebachelor’s degree. Finally, Ph.D. level holders study forthree to seven years after completing the master’s degree.In an ideal situation, tasks undertaken by the differentcadres tend to vary and steadily increase in sophistication,starting with performing menial tasks and gradually gettinginto more administrative, analytical, technical, and policyformulation tasks as one moves from being a certificate toa Ph.D. holder.

At the time of the research, 295 librarians were employedin the 14 university libraries in Nairobi. The entire populationwas to be included in the study; however, only 253 ques-tionnaires were distributed because one university wasreluctant to have all its librarians participate in the study.Out of the 253 questionnaires that were administered, 167librarians returned their questionnaires, thus representinga 66% return rate. Respondents included 16 (9.6%) certifi-cates, 74 (44.3%) diplomas, 30 (18%) bachelor’s, 42 (25.1%)master’s and 5 (3%) Ph.D. holders. Out of the 167 partici-pants, 88 (52.7%) were female while 79 (47.3%) were male.

Instruments

A paper-based survey questionnaire was used to collectdemographic information and quantitative data regardinglibrarians’ awareness/knowledge of copyright and strate-gies they employ to solve queries on copyright that arise.Questions 1e6 of the questionnaire solicited demographicdata, including cadre/education level, gender, predomi-nant department one works in and duration of service.These were used as independent variables in the study.Questions 7e12 were used to provide information abouttested knowledge of copyright. Questions 13e17 assessedparticipants’ perceptions of the seriousness of copyrightrestrictions in their libraries. Questions 18e35 weredesigned to compare librarians’ self-reported awarenessand knowledge of copyright laws with the perceivedimportance of those copyright laws. Questions 36e38 weredesigned to provide information on strategies librarianswould use when presented with queries on copyright.

Data analysis

Data on knowledge (tested knowledge and self-reportedknowledge) were analyzed using a KruskaleWallis test. Thisnon-parametric test was used because both independent(different cadres of librarians) and dependent variables

Table 3 Librarian cadres by level of tested copyright knowledg

Qualifications Level of tested copyright knowledge

Not knowledgeable A bit knowledgeable Mode

Certificate 2 2 4Diploma 0 9 37Bachelor’s 1 10 9Master’s 0 5 9Ph.D. 1 0 1Total 4 26 60

(awareness/knowledge of copyright) were categorical innature. Awareness/knowledge of copyright was categorizedinto five levels: Very Knowledgeable; Knowledgeable;Moderately Knowledgeable; A Bit Knowledgeable; and NotKnowledgeable. In computing self-reported knowledge/awareness of copyright issues, a response indicating VeryKnowledgeable was assigned a score of 5, while a responseindicating Not Knowledgeable was assigned a score of 0.

Factor analysis was run to determine emergent factorsfrom the 18 test items used to assess self-reported knowl-edge. Four factors were extracted, namely: (a) copyrightlaw in Kenya; (b) knowledge about theoretical principles ofcopyright; (c) knowledge about copyright treaties; (d)knowledge about socio-economic impact of copyright.

Results

Copyright knowledge in relation to education level/cadre of librarians

The first research question asked whether differences existin level of copyright awareness/knowledge among thevarious cadres of academic librarians in Kenya. Six ques-tions in the questionnaire were used to gauge level of“tested knowledge” and 18 test items were used to gaugea librarian’s perceived level of copyright knowledge, or“self-reported knowledge.”

Tested knowledge and education level/cadreTo compute “tested Knowledge” the following range ofaverage scores were used to represent level of testedknowledge: 0e5.99, Not Knowledgeable; 6e11.99, A BitKnowledgeable; 12e17.99, Moderately Knowledgeable;18e24.99, Knowledgeable; and 25e30, Very Knowledge-able. Table 3 shows the number of librarians in each cadreand how they were classified based on their tested knowl-edge of copyright issues.

A KruskaleWallis test, being an omnibus test, was usedto analyze whether there were any differences among thefive librarian cadres (Ph.D., master, bachelor, diploma, andcertificate) regarding tested knowledge of copyright issues.Results indicate that there is a statistically significantdifference in tested knowledge among the cadres based oneducation level. c2 (4, NZ 167)Z 13.446, pZ .009,h2Z .081. Median is 17 (Moderately Knowledgeable).

The highest mean rank was for librarians with a master’sdegree (nZ 42, mean rank 103.8), followed by Ph.D.(nZ 5, mean rank 99.80), certificate (nZ 16, mean rank84.09), diploma (nZ 74, mean rank 79.61) and bachelor’s

e.

rately knowledgeable Knowledgeable Very knowledgeable

6 219 98 2

17 112 1

52 25

issuesbasedonlibrarians’

educa

tionleve

l.

tranke

dgroup

Middle

group

Seco

nd-lowest

ranke

dgroup

Lowest

ranke

dgroup

30 rs rank92

.00

Bach

elor’sholders

(nZ

29)

meanrank85

.79

Certifica

teholders

(nZ

15)

meanrank74

.47

Diplomaholders

(nZ

72)

meanrank74

.32

22 e 1) 46

Bach

elor’sholders

(nZ

30)

meanrank88

.17

Certifica

teholders

(nZ

15)

meanrank82

.33

Diplomaholders

(nZ

72)

meanrank74

.45

46 (nZ

5)60

Bach

elor’sholders

(nZ

28)

meanrank81

.43

Certifica

teholders

(nZ

15)

meanrank77

.67

Diplomaholders

(nZ

72)

meanrank71

.67

07 lders

(nZ

15)

43Master’sholders

(nZ

38)meanrank77

.74

Ph.D.holders

(nZ

5)mean

rank77

.10

Bach

elor’sholders

(nZ

29)

meanrank72

.62


degree (nZ 30, mean rank of 64.40). Of the five cadres,master’s degree holders were more knowledgeable thanthe other cadres while bachelor’s degree holders were theleast knowledgeable.

A ManneWhitney Test, used for pairwise comparison wasperformed, and results indicated that there is a statisticallysignificant difference between librarians who hold masters’degrees (nZ 42,mean rank69.49) andthosewhoarediplomaholders (nZ 74, mean rank 52.26), UZ 1092.500, pZ .007,ZZ�2.694, r2Z .0246. Statistically significant differencealso exist between Librarians who are master’s degreeholders (nZ 42, Mean Rank 43.32) and those who holda bachelor’s degree (nZ 30,Mean Rank 26.95),UZ 343.500,pZ .001, ZZ�3.302, r2Z .152. Librarians with a master’sdegreewere thus found to have statistically significant higherlevel of tested knowledge of copyright compared to thosewho are diploma or bachelor’s degree holders.

Self-reported knowledge of copyright issues in relation toeducation level of librariansDoes self-reported knowledge of copyright issues differamong the various cadres of academic librarians in Kenya?Preliminary tests on data showed Cronbach alpha aZ .911,Bartlett test of sphericity c2 (153)Z 1670.078, pZ .000,and the KaisereMeyereOlkin (KMO) is .838. Because theBartlett test is significant and the KMO test is large, a factoranalysis was performed. Factor analysis for the 18 testitems was run using Principal Component Analysis andVarimax rotation and four factors were extracted: (a)Knowledge about copyright law in Kenya (8 test items); (b)Knowledge about theoretical principles of copyright (5 testitems); (c) Knowledge about copyright treaties (3 testitems); and (d) Knowledge about socio-economic impact ofcopyright (2 test items). Each of these four factors wasindependently analyzed using KruskaleWallis test, sincethe factors were categorical in nature and the scores didnot fall in a normal distribution curve (Table 4).

Table

4Se

lf-reportedkn

owledge

ofdifferentaspectsofco

pyright

Factors

ResultsofaKruskale

Wallis

test

Highest

ranke

dgroup

Seco

nd-highes

Factor1:

self-reported

knowledge

about

copyrightlaw

inKenya

c2(4,NZ

162)

Z4.76

4,pZ

.312

,h2Z

.0Ph.D.holders

(nZ

5)meanrank95

.20

Master’sholde

(nZ

41)mean

Factor2:

self-reported

knowledge

about

theoretica

lprinciples

ofco

pyright

c2(4,NZ

163)

Z3.60

3,pZ

.462

,h2Z

.0Ph.D.holders

(nZ

5)meanrank91

.50

Master’sdegre

holders

(nZ

4meanrank89

.Factor3:

self-reported

knowledge

about

copyrighttreaties

c2(4,NZ

160)

Z7.27

6,pZ

.122

h2Z

.0Master’sdegreeholders

(nZ

40)meanrank95

.80

Ph.D.holders

meanrank88

.Factor4:

self-reported

knowledge

about

socio-eco

nomic

impact

ofco

pyright

c2(4,NZ

157)

Z1.08

8,pZ

.896

,h2Z

.0Diplomaholders

(nZ

70)

meanrank82

.59

Certifica

teho

meanrank78

.

Duration of service in relation to self-reportedknowledge

The second research question sought to discover whetherdifferences exist in the level of copyright awareness/knowledge among librarians based on the duration theyhave worked in the libraries.

Duration of service and tested copyright knowledgeTable 5 indicates that most librarians have less than fiveyears of working experience in libraries. This is due to theestablishment of new universities and the recent expo-nential growth of student population in universities. Mostlibrarians with less than five years’ working experiencewere bachelor’s and diploma holders. Universities maxi-mize revenue by employing diploma and certificate holdersin order to save on staff salaries. Diploma and certificateholders get paid far less than other cadres, yet do most ofthe tasks in the library.

A KruskaleWallis test was conducted to evaluatewhether differences existed in tested knowledge of copy-right based on duration of service. Results show no statis-tical significant difference. Median is 17 (Moderately

Table 5 Duration of service by librarian cadre.

Duration ofservice in years

Librarian cadre Total

Ph.D. holders Master’s holders Bachelor’s holders Diploma holders Certificate holders

0e5 Years 0 2 14 29 1 46 (27.5%)6e10 Years 1 7 4 17 4 33 (19.8%)11e15 Years 1 10 5 8 6 30 (18%)16e20 Years 2 11 4 7 0 24 (14.4%)21e25 Years 0 5 0 5 2 12 (7.2%)Over 25 years 1 7 3 8 3 22 (13.2%)Total 5 42 30 74 16 167


Knowledgeable). Highest to lowest mean ranks are shown inTable 6.

Duration one has worked in libraries in relation to self-reported knowledgeFactor 1: self-reported knowledge about copyright law inKenya in relation to duration of service in a libraryKruskaleWallis test results indicate no statistical significantdifference between the duration a librarian has worked inlibraries and self-rated knowledge about copyright law inKenya. The median was 25 (Knowledgeable). Highest tolowest mean ranks are shown in Table 6.

Factor 2: self-reported knowledge about theoreticalprinciples of copyright and duration of serviceKruskaleWallis test results indicate that there is a statisti-cally significant difference in the duration a librarian hasworked in a library and self-reported knowledge abouttheoretical principles of copyright. The median score is 10(A bit knowledgeable) and a medium effect size. Highest tolowest mean ranks are shown in Table 6.

Pairwise comparison using the ManneWhitney test hadto be carried out to find which of the different durationcategories had a significant difference with each other: U(nZ 70)Z 269.5, pZ .000, ZZ�3.508, r2Z .176. Librar-ians who have worked in libraries between 0 and 5 years(nZ 46, mean rank 41.64) were more knowledgeable abouttheoretical principles of copyright than librarians with16e20 years experience (nZ 24, mean rank 23.73).

U (nZ 58)Z 139.5, pZ .008, ZZ�2.633, r2Z .12.Librarians who have worked in libraries between 0 and 5years (nZ 46, mean rank 32.47) were more knowledgeableabout theoretical principles of copyright than librarianswith 21e25 years experience (nZ 12, mean rank 18.13).

U (nZ 56)Z 247.5, pZ .023, ZZ�2.268, r2Z .092.Librarians who have worked in libraries between 6 and 10years (nZ 32, mean rank 32.77) were more knowledgeableabout theoretical principles of copyright than librarianswith 16e20 years experience (nZ 24, mean rank 22.81).

U (nZ 51)Z 189, pZ .011, ZZ�2.558, r2Z .128.Librarians who have worked in libraries between 11 and 15years (nZ 27, mean rank 31.00) were more knowledgeableabout theoretical principles of copyright than librarianswith 16e20 years experience (nZ 24, mean rank 20.38).

U (nZ 39)Z 94.5, pZ .039, ZZ�2.062, r2Z .109.Librarians who have worked in libraries between 11 and 15years (nZ 27, mean rank 22.50) were more knowledgeable

about theoretical principles of copyright than librarianswith 21e25 years experience (nZ 12, mean rank 14.38).

U (NZ 46)Z 153.5, pZ .015, ZZ�2.442, r2Z .13.Librarians who have worked in libraries between 16 and 20years (nZ 24, mean rank 18.90) were less knowledgeableabout theoretical principles of copyright than librarians withmore than 25 years experience (nZ 22, mean rank 28.52).

Factor 3: self-reported knowledge about copyright treatiesin relation to duration of serviceA KruskaleWallis test found no statistically significantdifference between duration of service and self-reportedknowledge of copyright treaties. Median score was 8(moderately knowledgeable). Highest to lowest mean ranksare shown in Table 6.

Factor 4: self-reported knowledge about socio-economicimpact of copyright in relation to duration of serviceResults from a KruskaleWallis Test indicates that there is nostatistically significant difference in the duration a librarianhas worked in libraries and knowledge about socio-economic impact of copyright. The median score was 8(knowledgeable) and there is a small effect size. Highest tolowest mean ranks are shown in Table 6.

Discussion

Results from this study indicate that there is a statisticallysignificant difference between the librarian cadres based oneducational level when it comes to tested knowledge. Thereis a medium effect size with 8.1% of variability in thedependent variable (tested knowledge of copyright) beingaccounted for by the independent variable (librarian cadres/education level). Even in instances where there wasa significantdifferencebetweenmaster’s degreeholders anddiploma holders, and between master’s degree holders andbachelor’s degree holders, the differences in level of testedknowledge is actually small. As a whole, academic librarianswere only moderately knowledgeable about copyrightissues. This situation might be caused by limited coverage ofcopyright issues in the library and information sciencecurriculum. Lack of or limited knowledge of copyright doesnot seem to only be confined to librarians in Kenyan univer-sities, but given the potential consequences in light ofinternational copyright treaties, it is imperative to increasetheir knowledge of copyright laws. Libraries could allowpeople at the circulation or reference desk to handle

Table 6 Tested and self-reported knowledge of copyright issues based on librarians’ duration of service.

Factors Results of a KruskaleWallis test

Highest rankedgroup

Second-highestranked group

Third-highestranked group

Third-lowestranked group

Second-lowestranked group

Lowest rankedgroup

Tested Knowledge c2 (5, NZ 167)Z 3.981, pZ .552, h2Z .02416e20 Years(nZ 24) meanrank 96.42

More than25 years(nZ 22) meanrank 88.89

11e15 Years(nZ 30)meanrank 85.85

0e5 Years(nZ 46)meanrank 83.07

6e10 Years(nZ 33)mean rank77.30

21e25 Years(nZ 12) meanrank 67.58

Factor 1: self-reportedknowledge aboutcopyright law inKenya

c2 (5, NZ 162)Z 7.347, pZ .196, h2Z .046More than25 years (nZ 22)mean rank 97.32






Factor 2: self-reportedknowledge abouttheoreticalprinciples ofcopyright

c2 (5, NZ 163)Z 16.915, pZ .005, h2Z .1040e5 Years(nZ 46) meanrank 95.12

More than 25years (nZ 22)mean rank90.23





Factor 3: self-reportedknowledge aboutcopyright treaties

c2 (5, NZ 160)Z 5.349, pZ .375, h2Z .034More than25 years (nZ 22)mean rank 100






Factor 4: self-reportedknowledge aboutsocio-economicimpactof copyright

c2 (5, NZ 157)Z 4.628, pZ .463, h2Z .0297More than25 years (nZ 21)mean rank 91.55







copyright queries. However, most of these desks aremanaged by diploma and bachelor’s degree holders, who asa whole, are only moderately knowledgeable about copy-right issues.

Certificate and diploma holders performed better ontested knowledge of copyright issues than bachelor’sdegree holders, and only 46% of librarians are knowledge-able or very knowledgeable about copyright issues. Thissuggests that more effort should be expended on educatinglibrarians. None of the library schools in Kenya has an entirecourse solely geared toward teaching copyright issues.

Despite the assumption that duration of service mighttranslate to knowledge of copyright issues, results from thisstudy indicate that there is no significant difference when itcomes to tested knowledge of copyright. Ericsson andLehmann (1996) argue that duration of service in itself isnot an indicator of one’s knowledge, and deliberate prac-tice is critical. If librarians do not deliberately learn aboutcopyright issues and increase their knowledge of copyright-related practices, their ability to deal with copyrightchallenges is likely to remain low.

Library employees with less than five years of serviceperform better on tests of copyright knowledge than theirpeers with 5e10 years of knowledge. Librarians with 16e20or more than 25 years of experience performed the best ontests of copyright knowledge. This seems to suggest thatKenyan librarians’ knowledge of copyright diminishesduring practice, although not significantly, and tends topick up after 10 years. This supports Ericsson and Lehmann(1996), who found that a person reaches peak performanceafter 10 years of deliberate practice.

There are no significant differences among the differentlibrarian cadres/education level when it comes to self-reported knowledge. However, it seems that the graduatedegree holders (Ph.D. and master’s degree holders) perceivethemselves as slightly more knowledgeable than those withpre-undergraduate (diploma and certificate holders) quali-fication on issues of copyright law in Kenya, theoreticalprinciples of copyright, and copyright treaties. However,holders of pre-undergraduate qualifications perceivedthemselves as slightly more knowledgeable than graduatedegree holders regarding the socio-economic impact ofcopyright. The plausible reason is that most of the pre-undergraduate degree holders tend to work at the circula-tion desk and tend to interact with users more than theother cadres.

Conclusion

The notion that higher academic qualifications equate tomore knowledge of copyright issues cannot be sustained.Academic librarians in Kenya have been found to be onlymoderately knowledgeable about copyright issues. Iflibrarians in academic libraries are to become moreknowledgeable about copyright issues, there either has tobe a deliberate effort to teach these librarians aboutcopyright issues or they have to become proactive inlearning more about copyright issues on their own. Libraryschools have a role to play in the eradication of copyrightinfringement by establishing courses that solely teachabout copyright. Continuing education is also critical aslibrarians ought to be retooled on knowledge about copy-right issues and skills regarding the handling of copy


issues. This continuing education can be in the form ofconferences, workshops and seminars regarding copyrightissues.

By 2013, developing countries are supposed to have fullyimplemented WTO’s TRIPS Agreement because extension ofthe transition period given to developing nations will cometo an end. A comparative study would allow a comparison

Appendix

between Kenyan librarians’ knowledge of copyright issuesand that of librarians in other countries. Further research isalso needed to establish whether users of academiclibraries in Kenya are knowledgeable about copyrightissues, the ways in which they aid or hinder copyrightinfringement, and how to develop copyright training thattakes into account cultural values and norms.

(continued on next page)

Appendix (continued)






References

Ahmed, S., & Christensen, B. T. (2009). An in situ study of analogicalreasoning in novice and experienced design engineers. Journal ofMechanical Design, 131(11), 111004-1e111004-9.

Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Lake, E. T., & Cheney, T.(2008). Effects of hospital care environment on patientmortality and nurse outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administra-tion, 38(5), 223e229.

Andreasson, S. (2006). Stand and deliver: private property and thepolitics of global dispossession. Political Studies, 54, 3e22.

Carlaw, K., Oxley, L., & Walker, P. (2006). Beyond the hype:intellectual property and the knowledge society/knowledgeeconomy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20(4), 642e690.

Cox, L. J. (1998). Perceptions of copyright awareness and compli-ance by principals, teachers, and school library media specialistsin public elementary schools in the state ofMissouri.Unpublishedmaster of Science thesis, Central Missouri State University.

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptionalperformance: evidence of maximal adaptation to taskconstraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273e305.

Gould, T. H., Lipinski, T. A., & Buchanan, E. A. (2005). Copyrightpolicies and the deciphering of fair use in the creation ofreserves at university libraries. The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship, 31(3), 182e197.

Kavulya, J. M. (2006). Trends in funding of university libraries inKenya: a survey. The Bottom Line, 19(1), 22e30.

Klein, G. (1997). Developing expertise in decision making. Thinkingand Reasoning, 3(4), 337e352.

KOPIKEN. (2009). The Reproduction Rights Society of Kenya. http://www.kopiken.org/about/history.html Retrieved 12.31.09, from.

May, C. (2002). The information society: A skeptical view. Cam-bridge: Polity.

May, C. (2006). Escaping the TRIPS trap: the political economy offree and open source software in Africa. Political Studies, 54,124e146.

Ngunjiri, J. (2010, March 22). Piracy hurting book publishers. TheDaily Nation, .

Nicholson, D. R. (2006). Intellectual property: benefit of burden forAfrica? IFLA Journal, 32(4), 310e324.

Park, W., & Ginarte, G. (1997). Intellectual property rights andeconomic growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, xv, 51e61.

Smeirs, J. (2000). The abolition of copyright: better for artists,third world countries and public domain. Gazette, 62(5),379e406.

Smith, K. H., et al. (2006). Copyright knowledge of faculty at twoacademic health science campuses: results of a survey. SerialsReview, 32, 59e67.

United Nations. (2010). Creative economy report: 2010. Geneva:UNCTAD.

United States, CIA. (2011). Kenya The world factbook 2011.Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.htmlRetrieved 10.04.11, from.

Wachira, M. (2008, April 2). Kenya: publishers losing millions topirates. The Daily Nation, .

Wa Micheni, M. (2008, October 21). Board names team to collectroyalties. The Citizen, .

Williamson, M. N. (1992). Copyright awareness and compliance asperceived by educators at Central Missouri State University.Unpublished master of Education Specialist thesis, CentralMissouri State University.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html

Documents

Exploring copyright knowledge in relation to experience and education level among academic librarians in Kenya