LIS 60030

Review Paper 2: Information Sources and Services for Users

Theories
Urquhart’s article focuses on the importance of posing a thoughtful research question
when engaging in a research project. Taking the time to think more deeply about professional
practices is necessary to make things more useful and ethical (2023, p. 101).
Liu and Lewis examined many libraries to assemble data showing that mobile services
are now widely available and that those same libraries will continue to invest in electronic ways
to communicate with their user base and make services more accessible (2023, p. 23-24).
Rennick delves into what represents a service and how information is structured on
library websites by considering the effects of standardization on how reliable the information can
be (2019, p. 24).
Xu and Cheng’s article studies the quality of smart services in university libraries in
mainland China and establishes that there is a lot of opportunity for improvement in regard to
users’ equal rights to information (2024, p. 903).
Marcaccio et al.’s article stresses the importance of getting feedback directly from users
about their experiences, and how those experiences vary depending on whether the users had
disabilities or not, highlighting how testing accessibility is vital to designing truly equitable
services (2022, p. 16).
Context
Urquhart’s area of focus came from considering the efficacy of cross-sectional surveys
brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. While these surveys certainly yielded large amounts of
data, Urquhart was concerned that the data collected resulted in a snapshot of understanding
rather than an in-depth study of a topic, and wanted to explore how different research methods
affected what kind of information could be collected (2023, p. 98-99).
Lui and Lewis’s research was prompted by curiosity surrounding how library services
had to adjust because of the pandemic, and specifically how mobile services played a role in that
(2023, p. 1).
Rennick’s article was prompted by Brigham Young University Library’s review of their
new website in 2014. Through monitoring traffic to the site, the web designers noticed that most
users would select the Services option if they were unsure where specific information was on the
site, and this observation led the author to study what users considered to be a service (2019, p.
1-2).
Xu and Cheng were inspired to conduct their research after contemplating citizens’ “right
to be forgotten”, which essentially means that individuals have control over their personal
information and can remove it at their own discretion; however, information rights appeared to
be of less importance in university libraries than in public libraries, and the authors were
LIS 60030
2

concerned that a lack of information rights would have a negative impact on academic study
(2024, p. 887-888).
Marcaccio et al. began their study after considering the differences between accessibility
standards required by guidelines, and the real-world experiences of library users who do not
benefit from so-called accessibility improvements; the authors ultimately not only test the
usefulness of accessibility standards, but also include the challenges they faced in setting up
testing and securing funding (2022, p. 1-3).
User-Centered Principles
Urquhart focuses on ensuring that users feel interested in the process of improving
professional practices, and poses the question of whether or not users feel that their input is of
any benefit to themselves (2023, p. 99).
Liu and Lewis consider that users have become more and more connected over the years
because of the advent of mobile devices, and how this connection has formed users expectation
that they should be able to easily and immediately access all manner of services right from their
mobile devices (2023, p. 1-2).
Rennick’s study considers how users interact with online library services, how best to
structure information on a website to make the user experience as smooth as possible, and the
importance of avoiding information overload by providing users with specific options for
specific services, rather than having a handful of generalized options (2019, p. 14).
Xu and Cheng focus on the information rights of users from a quality standpoint and
emphasizes standardization in that users should be able to maintain their information rights no
matter what kind of smart service they utilize (2024, p. 888).
Marcaccio et al.’s entire focus is on considering user accessibility by making sure to fully
include library users with disabilities in testing and research questions to get a well-rounded idea
of how to improve the user experience for them, unfettered by previously established guidelines
for compliance (2022, p. 3).
Methods
The techniques utilized by Urquhart include training and awareness activities, conjoint
analysis, which consists of a user ordering their preferences while completing a market research
survey; and vignettes, which tend to be presented via what-if situations to get users accustomed
to the approach being described by the situation; all of these methods are different but similar
approaches to gaining a users’ unfiltered feedback on a possible implementation (2023, p. 99-
101).
Liu and Lewis utilized several information-gathering techniques for their study such as
email surveys sent to participating libraries using Google Forms, mobile website examination
using a spreadsheet designed specifically for the study to collect data from library sites beginning
in 2021, and content analysis of each library which considered individuals served, total
circulation, and number of programs offered (2023 p. 4).
Since he is making a case for usable library website navigation, Rennick references other
articles which have considered specific components of library site services which include: an
LIS 60030
3

author named Clyde who compiled information from 100 library sites in 13 countries to establish
what was necessary for a library website; a duo of authors named Cohen and Still who created a
list of essential content that all academic library websites should provide; and another duo named
Yang and Dalal who conducted a study to determine different online services and what wordage
was commonly used (2019, p. 15).
Xu and Cheng utilized several research methodologies such as the LibQUAL Model
which is a survey questionnaire tool to measure quality of services; the principal component
analysis (PCA) which is a statistical method that seeks “…a comprehensive substitute for the
relevant variables through the correlation of the original variables, and to ensure that the
information loss in the transformation process is minimized”; and the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) which “…breaks down [a] problem into different constituent factors, and then gathers and
combines factors at different levels according to their interrelated influence and affiliation”,
which ultimately results in a comparison of advantages to disadvantages (2024, p. 891-892).
Marcaccio et al. describes how they initially sent out an untargeted survey to acquire a
wide range of feedback including a general categorization of disabilities. Once this initial survey
was completed, practice testing sessions were conducted and several testing sessions were
completed using assistive technologies, and each testing session allowed for adjustments and
improvements to make them more accessible (2022, p. 7-10).
Practical Applications and Recommendations
Though only a couple of the articles used for this paper specifically refer to academic
libraries, the observations made throughout all the articles nonetheless have value and can be
applied to any information institution. This combination of studies makes it clear that it is vital to
consider proper information sources in order to improve user services by using an ethical and
accessible approach.
In particular, the importance of Marcaccio et al.’s (2022) study cannot be overstated and I
would recommend that everyone within the realm of academic and public libraries take a similar
approach to that of the authors. Aguilar et al. (2011, p. 356) states that librarians should
encourage themselves to reach out and engage with the communities they serve, and Marcaccio
et al. (2022) echoes that idea throughout their study as they steadily explain how they do their
best to approach their research as objectively as possible, and try to leave behind the structure of
how things worked before. This indicates a “start from scratch” attitude that is necessary to truly
improve how a system works, and is a good way to get out from behind that old mindset of
“we’ve always done things this way”.
While it is certainly a long and often complicated process to re-structure a system, it is
imperative that information organizations focus on fully overhauling their systems when it is
needed. Back in 1994, Morris stated, “Library services as we know them need to be
reconceptualized in terms of a user-centered approach” (p. 20). Considering that many library
systems at their core have operated the same way for decades, it is long overdue that those
systems should be thoroughly analyzed and improvements made for the modern user.
LIS 60030
4

References
Aguilar, P., Keating, K., Schadl, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2011). Reference as outreach: meeting
users where they are. Journal of Library Administration (51), 343-358.
Liu, Y. Q. & Lewis, S. (2023). Services to mobile users: the best practice from the top-visited
public libraries in the US. Information Technology and Libraries.
https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v42i1.15143.
Marcaccio A., Clarke, S., & Wetheral, A. (2022). Learning about real experiences from real
users: a blueprint for participatory accessibility testing. The Canadian Journal of Library
and Information Practice and Research (17), 1-22.
Morris, R. (1994). Toward a user centered information service. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science (45), 20-30.
Rennick, B. (2019). Library services navigation: improving the online user experience.
Information Technology and Libraries, 14-26.
Urquhart, C. (2023). Making research and evaluation more useful and more interesting for
information services and their users: A guide for students and practitioners. Health
Information Libraries Journal (41), 97-102.
Xu, X. & Cheng, G. (2024). Study on the realization of information rights of university library
users from the perspective of smart service quality evaluation. College & Research
Libraries, 887-905.