Annals of Library Science and Documentation 41, 2; 1994; 55-62.

QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF PUBLICATION OUTPUT AMONGLIBRARIANS IN NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES

U. SELONG EDEMLibrary DepartmentUniversity of CalabarP.M.B.1115Calabar, Cross RiverStateNigeria

Questionnaire method was used to determinethe quantity of publication output among librariansin Nigerian universities over a period of 1985-1992. A total of 202 librarians were sampled from22 out of the 35 university libraries in Nigeria.Empirical analysis shows that the quantity of pub-lication output is low. Some factors which inhibitpublication output such as, under-funding ofeducation, high inflation rate, poor working andliving conditions, lack of motivation and currentinformation materials as well as lack of time andinterest for research were uncovered. Thepapersuggests motivational incentives and job satisfac-tion as a step toward performance effectiveness toenhance high publication productivity amonglibrarians in Nigerian universities.

INTRODUCTION

Between 1948and 1989, there was a struggle foracademic status by librarians working in univer-sity libraries. In 1990, the National UniversitiesCommission (NUC) weilding the power con-ferred on it by Decree 16, legislated that librariansin all Nigerian universities would have academicstatus. (By Decree 16, the National UniversitiesCommission was empowered to play a supervi-sory role in both the Federal and State universi-ties). One of the clear implications of the new un-ambiguous academic status conferred on librari-ans was that they had to publish or perish [1].

Since the librarians are classified as academicstaff, now they enjoy all the privileges whichtheir counterparts - university lecturers have.These privileges include study leave with pay,research/academic allowances and the opportu-nity of proceeding on both research and sab-batical leave when due. Librarian's promotion inNigerian university environment is based onpublication output and the number of yearsserved at a particular position. Promotion in the

Vol41 No 2 June 1994

job enhances their status/rank and salary. Pub-lication output also brings national and interna-tional visibility to the librarians or authors.

Research and citation studies conducted in re-cent years indicate that Nigerian students andscientists prefer to publish their research papersin overseasjournals based in USA,UKand USSRto the local ones. Most third world countries haveexperienced this trend [1-3].

Olsgaard and Olsgaard [4) observed that thestock in trade in librarianship was communica-tion and transfer of knowledge, yet little is knownabout the communication of ideas within the pro-fession. The authors conclude that librarianshipis sadly behind the disciplines of economics, psy-chology, and the sciences in determining thebibliometric nature of the professional literature.Writing insupport of librarians; Redmond et al. [5)had earlier pointed out that librarians working inuniversity libraries should see themselves asbeing involved in two information cycles - a"publication cycle" which involves the productionof new knowledge, its formalization and itsstorage and use; and a "demand cycle", provid-ing information to library users or clients. Thesescholars observed that by taking active part in thepublication cycle, librarians could compete withtheir teaching counterparts in the university envi-ronment [5, p.13).

Similarly, Bloomfield [6) had noted that one ofthe characteristics of librarians was that not onlythey were the collectors of what other peoplewrite, but also they were the producers of a largebody of literature relevant to their practice. Thisscholar urged librarians to use the informationresources available to them in extending thefrontiers of knowledge by publishing the results ofresearch studies that they have conducted.

55

U. SELONG EDEM

Coughlin and Snelson [7] supported the loftyideals of publication output among librarians inuniversity libraries. They summarized by statingemphatically that librarians should be "adding tothe stock of new knowledge and maintainingtheir heritage by performing and reporting origi-nal research if they want to improve the man-agement of their libraries, their performancesand their collections". Their advice is quitetimely if librarians really want to hold their headsup among their teaching counterparts in univer-sity milieu.

Harrison [8] observed that librarians did not writemuch and those who write had something to sayabout libraries and librarianship. He noted thatthose who do not write, were firmly of the opinionthat too much had been written bytheir colleaguesin the profession. He criticized this poor attitudetowards writing and urged them to see their rolesin multi-dimensional perspectives as informationprofessionals.

Similarly, on the local scene, Onadiran [9]observed that librarians had not written muchwhile examining the place of research in profes-sionallibrary education. He noted that one of thereasons .often given by librarians in universitylibraries against pursuing research in the field of li-brarianship was that "no original problems areleft to investigate".

Unomah [10] observed that writing and publish-ing gave a lot of satisfaction and increased one'sego in an academic environment. He argued thatpublishing should not be seen as punishment forlibrarians, rather it should serve as correcting theerroneous impression that publishing is themonopoly of faculty. He observed that one ofthe practical difficulties militating against thelibrarians in publishing was the rigidity of hishours of work which makes it difficult for him to in-corporate study and research into his usuallycrowded professional schedules. However, ifthelibrarian must survive as an academic, then hemust find time and write.

Many scholars have voiced against the idea ofpublication productlvlty among librarians. Promi-nent among them is Campbell [11] who arguedthat so far, there had been too much of emphasison research and publication at the detriment ofhigh quality library services to clients. Campbell

56

finally warned that our services would be seri-ously affected if emphasis placed on publicationoutput outweighs quality library services ren-dered. Similarly, Rayman and Goudy [12] ob-served that for "university librarians, the task topublish will be a very difficult exercise". Mitchelland Swieszkowski [13] and Kenny et al. [14)also held a similar view about these librariansbecause of the nature of their work. In the ab-sence of a local empirical study to counter theseassertions, this paper examines how much writ-ing or quantity of publication are produced byNigerian university librarians. Furthermore, it at-tempts to identify those factors which may aid orinhibitthe research, writing and publishing amongthese librarians.

In this paper, survey statistics were categorisedinto two major dimensions, namely, academicpublication output -journal articles, books, accep-ted or published conference/workshop papersand work related publication output - abstracts,indexes,bibliograpt liesand in-house publicationsaccepted or published by the librarians. Suchacademic and work related publications wereassumed to have had local, national and interna-tional book/serial numbers of ISBN or ISSN.

METHODOLOGY

During the 1992-93academic session, a stratifiedrandom sampling method was used to select 278respondents or librarians working in 22 out of 35university libraries in Nigeria. All the universitieswere categorized into five groups consisting of(a) Federal universities; (b) universities of ag-riculture; (c) State universities; (d) State univer-sities of technology; and (e) Federal universitiesof technology. Their names or status were usedas a major criterion for placing them in a group.

Furthermore, for the study, a simple randomsampling method was used to select universitiesfrom each of the five groups. However, the geo-graphical location of universities was taken intoconsideration during selection. Finally, all thelibrarians found in the selected university librarieswere given questionnaire irrespective of sex,age and status. The questionnaires were bro-adly worded to allow each respondent an oppor-tunity to give as much of his/her viewpoint aspossible.

Ann Lib Sci Doc

QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF PUBLICATION OUTPUT AMONG LIBRARIANS

202 respondents of librarians including 121males and 76 females filled and returned theirquestionnaires correctly representing 72.66% re-sponse rate. 5 (2.5%) respondents refused todisclose their sex for reasons best known to them(Table 1).

Table 1

Classification of librarians by sex

Sex of librarian Frequency Valid percent

Male 121 59.9Female 76 37.6No response 5 2.5(Not disclosed)

Total 202 100.00

Respondents were requested to check on a sixpoint scale to express their level of publicationoutput within the past seven years - from 1985 to1992thus:- (1) None; (2) 1-3; (3) 4-7; (4) 8-11; (5)12-15; (6) 16 and above. Furthermore, quantita-tive values were given to the responses in thequestionnaire as indicated above and the meansof responses were computed for each publicationoutput dimension.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

To determine the level of publication output amongthe university librarians a simple percentage wasused and the results obtained are shown inTables 2 and 3 below.

From Table 2, it appears that out of 195 librarians,83 (42.6%) did not have any journal article to theircredit; on the other hand 4 (2.1%) librarians have16 or more number of journal articles to theircredit.

Table 2

Level of academic publication output

SI. Academicno. publication Valid None 1-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16+

output no. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Journal 195 83 50 37 12 9 4articles (42.6%) (25.6%) (18.9%) (6.26%) (4.6%) (2.1%)

2. Conference/ 189 114 65 9 0 0 1workshop (60.3%) (34.4%) (4.8%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.5%)papers

3. Books 192 145 24 13 3 2 5(76%) (12.5%) (6.8%) (1.6%) (1.0%) (2.6%)

Total 342 139 59 15 11 10

Vo141 No 2 June 1994 57

U. SELONG EDEM

350

300

2501 +-_~~--~------_r------~--------+_------~------~200 ~-----+_-~t___-

150 ~-----+_----~~~---~------_r--------+_------~------~

100 ~------r_----~~~~~--r_------~------~------~------~50 1-------1:-.---

o X~----__~--------~.------~~------~--------~--------~------~L__KEY

yX

- - - - .Scale &

58

1 2 6 7

••

Total Number of RespondentsTotal Number of Academic and work Related PublicationOutput.Level of Academic Publication OutputLevel of work Related Publication Output2cm c 50 units on the Y-axis; 2cm - 1 unit on theX-axis.

Fig.: Graph Showng the Levels of Academic andWork Related Publication Output among Librarians in Nigerian Universities

Ann Lib Sci Doc

QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF PUBLICATION OUTPUT AMONG LIBRARIANS

Similarly, as regards conference/workshop pa-pers presented and/or published, out of 189 li-brarians, as high as 114 (60%) librarians did nothave any conference/workshop paper to theircredit; only 75 (40%) librarians have such pub-lications. To our greatest dismay, out of 192valid responses received about book publica-tion, as high as 145 (76%) librarians did not haveany book to their credit and only 5 (2.6%) librari-ans have published 16 or more number of booksin librarians hip and other subjects.

From Table 3 it is evident that there was a lowquantity of work related publication output by the

librarians.

From 125 valid responses received about thepublished bibliographies it appears that 50(40%) librarians did not publish any bibliography,while 66 (52.8%) librarians published between1-3 bibliographies and only 8 (6.4%) librarianshave published between 4-7 bibliographies.

Similarly, 66 (76.7%) librarians did not publishany abstract. Only 17 (19.8%) librarians publishedbetween 1-3 abstracts and only 2 (2.3%) librari-ans published between 4-7 abstracts. Other'spublications were practically insignificant.

Level of work related publication output among librarians in Nigerian universities

Table 3

SI. Academic Valid None 1-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16+No. publication

output 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Bibliographies 125 50 66 8 1 0 0(40%) (52.8%) (6.4%) (0.8%) (0.0%) (0.0%)

2. Abstracts 86 66 17 2 1 0 0(76.7%) (19.8%) (2.3%) (1.2%) (0.0%) (0.0%)

3. Indexes 103 59 36 6 1 0 1(57.3%) (35.0%) (5.8%) (1.0%) (0.0%) (1.0%)

4. In-housepublications 184 103 62 10 7 1 1

(56.0%) (33.7%) (5.4%) (3.8%) (0.5%) (0.5%)

Total 278 181 26 10 1 2

A significant aspect ofthe survey isthat 59 (57.3%)librarians did not index, 36 (35.0%) librarians be-tween 1-3 indexes, while only 6 (5.8%) librariansbetween 4-7 indexes. Only 1 librarian eachcompleted between 8-11 and 16 and above numberof indexes in books.

A disappointing trend is that 103 (56%) librariansdid not have any in-house publications out of 184librarians who respondedtothis item. 62 (33.7%)

Vo141 No 2 June 1994

librarians have between 1-3 in-house publica-tions and 10 (5.4%) respondents have between4-7, and 7 (3.8%) librarians have between 8-11in-house publications to their credit. Surpris-ingly, only 1 respondent each have 12-15 and 16and above number of in-house publications.

The data collected revealed other factors thataffected or inhibited publication productivity. Thesefactors were ranked as shown in Table 4.

59

U. SELONG EDEM

Barriers to publication output

Table 4

SI. Various barriers Number of ValidNo. respondents percent

1. Underfunding of education 80 39.60%2. High inflation rate 61 30.20%3. Poor working and living conditions 40 19.80%4. Lack of motivation and current information materials 11 5.45%5. Lack of time and interest for research 10 4.95%

Total 202 100%

80 (39.60%) librarians indicate that the greatestbarrier facing publication productivity is under-funding of education. Surprisingly, 61 (30.20%)librarians feel that high inflationary rate is thegreatest problem affecting their publication out-put. 40 (19.80%) librarians indicate that thegreatest obstacle affecting their publicationproductivity is poor working and living condi-tions and '11 (5.45%) librarians opine that lack ofmotivation and scarcity of current informationmaterials as the greatest barrier, while 10(4.95%)librarians maintain that lack of time is the mainbarrier facing their publication productivity.

DISCUSSION

The study shows that there is a low level ofpublication output among university librarians ofNigeria. However, the barriers which inhibit pub-lication output have been identified. The resultsare some-how strange and in conformity withthe assertions made by previous scholars, likeOlsgaard and Olsgaard (4), Rayman and Goudy(12), Harrison (8), Mitchell and Swieszkowski[13] and Kenny etal. [14] who held that librari-ans in university libraries even in developed coun-tries would find it difficult to write, and publish.

The results can be explained by the fact that in the1960s and the 1980s, librarians were not ex-pected to write and publish the same number ofpapers as their teaching counterparts. In fact,they were classified as "administrative/profes-sional staff" and emphasis was not placed on

60

research and publication before promotion. Inthe older universities, where they were classifiedas academic staff, some authorities did notadhere strictly to the publication requirements forpromotion. It was Decree No. 16 of 1990 thatmandated or empowered Nigeria UniversitiesCommission (NUC) with a new guideline empha-sizing publication requirements similar to that oflecturers for librarians before promotion. Gener-ally, librarians are now classified and treated asacademic staff in all Nigerian universities.

In the study, one would notice that librarians dida little better in the work related publication outputthan the academic publication output. This canbe explained by the fact that librarians see workrelated publication as "feminine in nature" whichdoes not take much time and rigor to produce.The academic publication output is seen asmore rigorous and intellectually more challeng-ing to produce. Consequently, it appears thatlibrarians scarcely find time to do research andwrite papers unlike their teaching counterpartsbecause of the nature of their job which is serviceoriented.

The study also shows the barriers which inhibitpublication productivity, It is a truism that highereducation programmes are grossly underfundedin Nigeria since the economic recession of theearly 1980s. Workers productivity has beenaffected too because worker's needs are not metor satisfied. This has caused many strikes inrecent times. Budget allocation appears to be

Ann Lib Sci Doc

QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF PUBUCATION OUTPUT AMONG UBRARIANS

grossly inadequate. For instance, the NationalUniversities Commission (NUC) recently recom-mends or stipulates that every university shouldspend 10% of its recurrent budget allocation onits university library in particular. This recom-mendation is rarely adhered to as none of the uni-versity libraries in Nigeria gets this stated amount.Cuts and withholding of funds are arbitrarilydecided upon by university administration andlibrary funds are often an attractive source offunds to slash or from which to borrow. Conse-quently, this has seriously affected the acquisi-tion of new information materials for students,lecturers and librarians to up-date their knowl-edge, research skills and to keep themselvesabreast of the own development in their field.

Generally, there is a high rate of inflation causedby the global economic recession and weakNigerian currency value. This harsh socio-eco-nomic environment affects every worker. Librari-ans are no exception. This high inflation rate hasbrought a lot of dissatisfaction among workersand has affected their productivity. One may notbe astonished to observe that the harshness ofsocio-economic environment has affected librar-ian's publication output. It appears that the sala-ries. paid hardly meet one's needs because ofhigh cost of living, transport, high school feesand accommodation problem in urban areas.

Many librarians disclosed that poor working andliving conditions hinder their publication output.For instance, no university library has fully com-puterized its major services while some are stillcontemplating the introduction of automatedsystems.

Some librarians indicated lack of time for seriousresearch work because of the nature of theirduties. Librarians in universities do evening shift!early morning duties. Most librarians confirmedthat they observe strictly 40 hours of work perweek beginning from 8.00 a.m. t04.00p.m. daily.This, they said affected their publication produc-tivity because it does not give them enoughtime for research work and writing unlike theirteaching colleagues who do not adhere strictly todaily working period of eight hours.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The introduction of staff/departmentalseminar needs to be made compulsory

Vol41 No 2 June 1994

for every academic staff in the librarywherein he will have to present a paperin every session. Such a seminar couldcome from an original research workwhich could be constructively discussedand brushed up for publication in theform of a paper.

2. Joint and multiple authorships of researchpapers should be encouraged amonglibrarians irrespective of age, status orsalary position within and outside thelibrary environment. Interdisciplinaryresearchers could equally be encouragedamong librarians, archivists, informationscientists and other field specialists.

3. Nigerian workers respond positively tomonetary rewards as incentives to improvetheir morale, performance, service andpublication output, in particular. Conse-quently, those librarians who publish re-quired number of papers should not bemandated to stay beyond two to threeyears before promotion.

4. There are other factors outside the uai-versity environment which may aid pub-lication productivity of librarians such as,personal - lack of interest for research/publishing, psychological, non-institu-tional factors e.g., high rejection rate ofmanuscripts sent out for publication andlack of job satisfaction and motivationalfactors (e.g. lack of job satisfaction)and motivational factors, (e.g. lack ofgood working tools or facilities and poorworking and living conditions caused byunderfunding of education and highinflation rate). Nigerian university librari-ans need incentives like high wagesand comfortable living conditions aswell as good social system which couldenhance research and publishing skills.

5. Both research and sabbatical leaveperiods could be made compulsorybecause during these periods, librarians,archivists and information scientists canjointly carry out research which canresult in good papers for publication.Further, research grants and fellowships/sponsorships made available by insti-tutions, bodies and organisations should

61

U. SELONG EDEM

be fully utilized whenever they are avail-able because such facilities do influencepublication productivity.

SUMMARY

With the results of the study, one can assertthat the publication output among librarians inNigerian universities is low. Five major problemsthat inhibit publication productivity, have beenidentified and discussed. All these problems, i.e.underfunding of education, lack of time andinterest for research, high inflation rate andpoor working and living conditions require neces-sary attention and remedy, to increase the publi-cation activity of the librarians.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to thank the University ofCalabar Research Grants Committee for provid-ing funds for this research study to be under-taken.

REFERENCES

1. IFIDON (Sam E). Publishing of libraryjournals in Nigeria. Third World Libraries.3,2; 1993; 47.

2. EDEM (US). Serials acquisition and man-agement in Nigerian academic libraries:implication for quality library services.Jour. Inf. Servo Use. 9, 3; 1989; 168.

3. EHIKHAMENOR (F A). Aspects of thepublication cycle of physical scientists insome Nigerian universities. Jour. Inf. Sci.16,4; 1990; 261.

4. OLSGAARD(John) and OLSGMRD (JeanK). Authorship of five library periodicals.Coli. Res. Lib. 41, 1; 1980; 51.

5. REDMOND (0 A), SINCLAIR(M P) andBROWN(G). University libraries and uni-

versity research. Coli. Res. Lib. 36; 1972,Nov; 447.

6. BLOOMFIELD(M). The writing habits oflibraries. Coli. Res. Lib. 27; 1966, March;109.

7. COUGHUN(C)andSNELSON(P). Searchfor research inACRLconference papers.Jour. Acad. Librarianship. 9; 1983,March;21.

8. HARRISON(K C). Librarians as authors.Lib. Assoc. Rec. 84; 1982, May; 200.

9. ONADIRAN(GT). The place of researchin professional library education. Lib.Scientist. 5; 1978, March; 17.

10. UNOMAH (J I ) : Academic status of li-brarians in Nigerian universities : realor mere limbo. Nigerian Library and In-formation Science Review. 3; 1991; 128.

11. CAMPBELL(John). Overdue: publish orperish - library style,Wilson Lib. Bull. 52;1977, Nov; 250.

12. RAYMAN(R) and GOUDY (F W). Re-search and publication requirements inuniversity libraries. Coli. Res. Lib. 41, 1;1980; 42.

13. MITCHELL(W Bede) and SWIESZKOW-SKI (L S). Publication requirements andtenure approval rates; an issue for aca-demic librarians. Coli. Res. Lib. 46; 1985,May; 253.

14. KENNY(K), Tietjen (LD),and Witthus (RW) Increasing scholarly productivityamong library faculty: strategies for amedium size libraries. Jour. Acad. Librar-ianship. 17,3; 1980; 147.

62 Ann Lib SciDoc