do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.
Assessing the institution’s footprint in web 2.0 and the presence of e-resources in the web: a comparative analysis of public and private university library websites in Bangladesh.
The objective of this paper is to present a comparative analysis of the availability of Web 2.0 tools and e-resources on selected public and private university library websites in Bangladesh.
Methods– Content analysis was adopted as the methodology for the study. Twenty university library websites, comprised of ten top-ranked public and ten top-ranked private universities in Bangladesh, were studied for data collection.
Results– The findings demonstrate that the use of Web 2.0 tools in the selected university library websites is still at its early stage, but it has been growing rapidly. More than 90% of the university libraries apply one or more Web 2.0 tools to their websites. The private university library websites are ahead of public university libraries in terms of the integration of Web 2.0 tools and e-resources.
Conclusion– This study provides an overall scenario of the use of Web 2.0 tools in the library websites of top-ranked universities in Bangladesh. Existing studies on Web 2.0 and e-resources seem to ignore the possibility of comparing public university library websites with private university library websites. Conducting a study like this will provide an overview about the existing status of Web 2.0 tools. This will be useful for a university whose library is planning to develop a website.
The goal of Bangladesh government is to build “Digital Bangladesh” by the year 2021. This has paved the way for exchange of digital information in terms of education, transfer of knowledge, and access to information on local and global aspects. A website is capable of ensuring easy access to knowledge, preservation of knowledge systems, dissemination of information and better information services, which are core concerns of the Digital Bangladesh Vision 2021.To make the dream “Digital Bangladesh” comes true; the availability of services and resources in library website is a prerequisite, as the library websites serve as the windows through which they provide electronic services to the distant users.
University Education in Bangladesh: The University Grants Commission (UGC) of Bangladesh is the constitutional apex body in the field of higher education in Bangladesh. Quality enhancement and quality assurance in higher education in all the public and private universities are primary objectives of the UGC through the supervision, maintenance, promotion and coordination of university education. The UGC assesses the needs of the universities in terms of funding and approval of new faculties, departments, institutes; ensuring academic, administrative and financial discipline in the universities through continuous monitoring and supervision; conducting inquiry and survey to prevent corruptions and irregularities in all types of universities.
According to University Grant Commission (UGC) of Bangladesh, there are currently 141 public and private universities in Bangladesh. The number of public universities is 40 and private universities are 101. Public universities are funded by the government though they are run as self-managed organizations. The first public university in Bangladesh is University of Dhaka, established in 1921. The establishment of a private university is relatively a new trend in this country. In the early 1990s, the private sectors undertook responsibility on the creation of universities. Since then, the country has experienced fabulous growth in private universities (UGC, 2018).
The demographic and other information of selected universities in Bangladesh:
|Public University (Funding source: Government)|
|University of Dhaka||1921||13||82||32251||2257||1:14||23||681035|
|Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology||1962||5||18||9780||686||1.14||8||135401|
|Bangladesh Agricultural University||1961||6||43||6760||593||1.11||13||192886|
|Shahjalal University of Science and Technology||1986||7||28||10398||509||1.20||5||66739|
|Sher-e–Bangla Agricultural University||2001||3||30||3310||227||1.15||5||39722|
|Khulna University of Engineering & Technology||2003||3||18||4056||302||1.13||7||51398|
|University of Chittagong||1966||9||43||23836||1179||1.20||12||297422|
|Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University||1998||7||46||3409||488||1.7||1||26760|
|Private Universities (Funding source: mainly students’ tuition fees and endowments and donations from trustee board members)|
|Independent University Bangladesh||1993||6||19||6180||353||1.18||1||26778|
|North South University||1992||4||16||19081||1279||1:15||0||146247|
|Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology||1995||4||9||6878||447||1:15||1||27521|
|Eastern University Bangladesh||2003||4||5||3449||212||1.16||0||18109|
|American International University-Bangladesh||1995||4||18||10716||362||1.30||1||47619|
|United International University||2003||2||3||7859||349||1.23||0||20796|
|University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh||2003||4||6||4373||238||1.18||0||19622|
|Daffodil International University||2002||5||22||20909||828||1.25||5||50538|
Source: (University Grants Commission of Bangladesh, 2016)
Web 2.0 tools and e-resources: Web 2.0 tools and e-services are changing the way people use the Internet, facilitating collaboration, communication and information sharing. Under this influence, the top private and public academic libraries in Bangladesh have gradually increased their efforts to endow their traditional library websites with more than 2.0 elements.
The benefits of library websites are numerous, including the opportunity for patrons to interact with the library catalog, providing a gateway to electronic resources, allowing remote access to library databases, offering virtual reference services and utilizing a blog to announce new resources or services and provide patrons with an avenue to communicate with staff and get feedback (Tella, 2015). Applications developed under the umbrella term ‘Web 2.0’ include blogs, really simple syndication (RSS), wikis, instant messaging, social networking sites (SNS), social tagging, mashup, social media sharing and much more other. Some of these applications are described below:
Customizable user interface: The customizable user interface is one of the essential elements of Web 2.0. This interface is what the user will use to interact with the virtual community of the library site. Depending on the site design, a user can share and save, and create a more personal experience by logging into their account (Rogers, 2015). This allows for further catalog search, access to databases, and more.
Instant Messaging (IM): Instant messaging (IM) is also a very useful tool that can help library professionals provide library services. Maness (2006) claimed that Instant Messaging was initially a Web 1.0 application because it often involved software downloads, but that instant messaging could be categorized in Web 2.0 applications because instant messaging is available via the browsers of most service providers (AOL, Meebo, Zoho, MSN, Google Talk, etc.). Instant messaging is widely used for online reference services in libraries. Ask a librarian service is provided by instant messengers all over the world.
Mashup: This term is derived from the music community where musicians sampled and remixed several tracks, voices and sounds to create a new song (Kraft, 2007). It is increasingly seen as a powerful way to exploit the current data in a new and imaginative way. “It allows the user to edit OPAC data and metadata, save user tags, instant messenger conversations with librarians, wiki entries with other users and catalogs.”(Ikonne, Onuoha and Madukoma, 2013).
Media Sharing and Streaming: Media refers to video, images, sound, and the like. A large numbers of websites (like YouTube, Voice Thread, Picasa etc.) are set-up for the sole purpose of sharing media while others have built-in media sharing features. Libraries used it to provide an introduction to library services and resources or to create tutorials for database searching maintaining a YouTube account.
Mobile Applications: Mobile apps can be used to provide mobile access to web apps or be specifically designed for your mobile device (Rogers, 2015). Applications were primarily telephone applications for catalog searches, database searches, or other library services and resources.
Really simple syndication (RSS): RSS is an XML format that “allows users to receive content from sources such as news agencies, blogs, and any frequently changing web page” (Kajewski, 2007). “By using this feature, multiple sources of information are grouped into a single page so that users can analyze the information and select items of interest for more detail, thus mitigating information overload” (Kim and Abbas , 2010).
Social Networking Sites (SNS): SNS are a way to connect with friends, family members and associates around the world (Mahmood, 2011). SNS provides a free way to create a custom web page within an established online community. SNS sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Pinterest provide users with services such as blogging, media sharing, tagging and messaging (Maness, 2006)
E-resources can be accessed through the library’s website where users can get the information they want and when they need it. E-resources include full-text electronic journals, online databases, electronic books, company information, encyclopedias, digital images, industry profiles, market research and career information (Tella, 2015).
The study attempts to investigate the websites of academic libraries (both public and private) in Bangladesh regarding the adoption of Web 2.0 tools and E-resources.
The website has enabled creating, processing, and using information in a digital form. It is assumed that many university libraries in Bangladesh have already included a variety of Web 2.0 features in their websites but there is a little research investigating the extent of the adoption of such features and any comparison between public and private universities in this regard. Driven by this need, this paper investigates the extent to which the top-ranked universities of Bangladesh adopted Web 2.0 tools and make their e-resources available on their library websites. The study also compares the presence of Web 2.0 tools and e-resources on public and private university library websites in Bangladesh.
The main objective of this study is to compare the presence of a variety of Web 2.0 tools and e-resources in university websites in Bangladesh. The specific Objectives of this study are to:
- determine the extent to which tertiary level academic libraries in Bangladesh are using Web 2.0 tools to make available library services.
- find out the Web 2.0 tools available in public and private university library websites and web pages;
- determine the e-resources available on the library websites; and
- compare the availability of Web 2.0 tools and of e-resources between the public and private university library websites.
To achieve the aforesaid objectives, the following research questions were investigated:
RQ1. What types of Web 2.0 technologies were adopted and exposed on library websites?
RQ2. What are the web contents and e-resources available on the selected library websites?
RQ3. What are the differences between public and private university library websites in terms of adoption of Web 2.0 tools and e-resources?
Adoption of Web 2.0 tools is not a new phenomenon for libraries. There have been numerous studies that show that academic libraries, particularly those in developed countries, have successfully embraced social web tools (Mahmood and Richardson, 2011; Tripathi and Kumar, 2010; Yoyng-Mi and Abbas, 2010; Linh, 2008).
Kehinde and Tella (2012) noted that the vast majority of library services are now web-based and therefore, attention is focused on designing user-friendly, easy-to-manage and well-maintained websites. The design of user-friendly websites ensures easy access by users.
What is meant by Web 2.0 tools is generally understood, but the knowledge / capacity of the degree of adoption of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries is still reasonably limited. In Australia and New Zealand, Linh (2008) explored the content of 47 university library websites. In developing a checklist to collect data for research, he found that there was general awareness of Web 2.0 tools, but that the overall level of implementation was low. The most popular tool was RSS and instant messaging was the least used. All technologies have been applied with their basic characteristics. In addition, Liu (2008) reviewed the practices of the university library website at the time and proposed a conceptual model for the future design of the university library website. The researcher studied 111 library Web sites that were members of ARL and concluded that future university library websites could include one of the following:
• user focus;
• user engagement;
• online communities; and
• remixing ability
A study of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries showed that (Linh, 2008) At least two-thirds of Australasian university libraries deployed one or more Web 2.0 technologies. Only four Web 2.0 technologies have been used for specific purposes and with some basic features. Garoufallou and Charitopoulou (2011) studied the use and knowledge of Web 2.0 tools by Greek students. The study found that YouTube and Flickr were the most used Web 2.0 tools after Facebook by students. They added that it seems that students who use Flickr tend to use YouTube too.
Han and Liu (2010) studied Web 2.0 applications in the best Chinese academic libraries and found that more than two-thirds of China’s top 38 academic libraries apply one or more types of Web 2.0 tools through the basic functions of their websites. Of the six types of tools, Catalog 2.0 and RSS are the most common, while instant messaging, blog, SNS and wiki are less common.
Chua and Goh (2010) examined the widespread use of Web 2.0 applications in higher education and public libraries. They used a stratified sampling method to identify 60 well-ranked universities and 60 public libraries from North America, Europe, and Asia. By means of a quality framework for library websites and a three-step content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004), the study considered the effect of Web 2.0 applications on perceived quality of the libraries’ websites for a period of four months. After browsing 120 academic and public libraries in North America, Europe, and Asia, they found that blogs and RSS are the most popular Web 2.0 tools, followed by instant messaging (IM). Social networking service (SNS), wiki, and tagging were less popular. Also, North American libraries engage more web technology than European and Asian libraries.
Shi and Chen (2010) showed in their research, two-thirds of Chinese university libraries deployed one or more Web 2.0 technologies. Only one-tenth of libraries adopted more than four Web 2.0 technologies. RSS was the most widely applied, while Wiki was the least
Mahmood and Richardson (2011) surveyed the websites of 100 academic libraries of the Association of Research Libraries and found that all libraries were using a range of tools of Web 2.0. The study found that blogs, micro-blogs, RSS, IM, SNSs, podcasts and vodcast were well-liked, and the utilization of wikis, photo sharing, virtual worlds and presentation sharing were very low.
Kehinde and Tella (2012) assessed university library websites in some selected university libraries in Nigeria. The study used content analysis as the research design. A total of 30 university library websites were selected from the three categories of universities in Nigeria to represent a purposive stratified sampling technique. A checklist was used as the research instrument. The criteria for the checklist were drawn on the basis of the assessment of library websites for Web 2.0 tools, access to electronic materials and a link to the Nigerian University Commission virtual library. Four research questions were developed and answered, and the results revealed a low level of integration of Web 2.0 tools on most of the websites.
A comparative study of librarians in university libraries in Nigeria and South Africa regarding their Web usage of 2.0 tools was conducted by Baro, Ebiagbe, and Godfrey (2013). The results show that there are differences in the use of Web 2.0 tools among librarians in university libraries in Nigeria and South Africa. Differences also exist among the librarians in Nigeria and South Africa regarding the purpose for which the librarians use Web 2.0 tools. Differences also exist among the librarians in Nigeria and their South African counterparts regarding the challenges in using Web 2.0 tools. Librarians in Africa need to integrate Web 2.0 elements into their library services to meet the needs of our users.
Hussain (2015) conducted an assessment of 188 library associations’ web sites. Based on the analysis, it was found that the majority of Web2.0 tools have been used by the continental American library associations. This represents 89.86%, while only a small number of Web2.0 tools have been used by Asian library associations, or 25.64%. Most of the Web 2.0 tools used by library associations are Facebook, Twitter, RSS, LinkedIn, Flickr and Blogs.
Research suggests that library conversations and their resources take place on Twitter and Facebook, whether the library is present or not (Bradley, 2015). SM offers the library the opportunity to get out of the desk and go where the conversations are, becoming part of that conversation (Bradley, 2015).
Tella and Oladapo (2016) had carried out a comparative analysis of available features and Web 2.0 tools on selected Nigerian and South African university library websites. The findings show that the use of Web 2.0 tools in the selected universities is encouraging. The South African university libraries are ahead in terms of the incorporating of Web 2.0 tools, e-resources, and e-databases available in their websites as compared to the Nigerian university.
Libraries were using Web 2.0 tools for sharing and marketing their news and services, providing library instructions, providing information about print and digital resources, and seeking feedback from users (Mahmood, 2016). A good number of the studies reviewed in the literature present content analysis of library websites and library surveys. There has, however, been a lack of literature concerning Web 2.0 utilization by libraries in developing countries (Tripathi and Kumar, 2010).
The library and information services of the 21st century are evolving rapidly. In modern times, library content is not limited to physical formats such as books, magazines or journals.
Libraries are moving from traditional print resources to the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and other electronic services (Okazie, 2016). In addition, as a result of the technological revolution, libraries do not need to be in physical space to provide information to their users. The main prospect is that, ICTs contribute significantly to the removal of geographical barriers around the world (Prakash, 2017).
Electronic resources can be defined as a system in which information is stored electronically and made accessible by computer networks. These resources include Online Public Access catalogue, CD-ROMs, online databases, e-journals, e-books and Internet resources. (Oak, 2016).
In academic institutions, electronic libraries typically contain electronic journals, electronic books and prior examination documents, course files, theses and dissertations, and library catalogs in digital format. These information resources are normally organized according to the subject (Tedd & Large, 2005).
The frequent use of Facebook, Twiter, YouTube, among others, provides alternatives to the use of libraries. This suggests that people can use electronic resources for academic purposes, but not directly with libraries (Prabhakar & Rani, 2017).
Users generally prefer electronic resources to printed resources in areas where research is quickly outdated. In the Texas A & M Physics and Technology Libraries, Science’s Top Ten eBooks in NetLibrary were used six times more than printed books, and top-tier e-books were used three times as much as their counterparts. In Safari, the top ten computer eBooks were used 207 times more than printed versions (Kimball et al., 2010).
Vasishta (2013) conducted a study to evaluate the accessibility of electronic journals from the websites of technical university libraries in northern India. Research shows that these types of libraries are trying to establish interactive websites, but majority of library websites appear to be at an early stage and have very simple and basic features. On the whole, they are not able to serve as a platform for the adequate dissemination of electronic journals.
Asogwa, Ugwu and Ugwuanyi (2015) conducted a survey in Nigerian university libraries. The sample consisted of 210 employees and students who used electronic resources during the 2012-2013 academic sessions. WebQual modified four performance indicators were designed and used to measure: library equipment, the library website, the public online access catalog (OPAC) and e-user training in university libraries. The five-point service performance scale from very poor to excellent was used to measure respondents’ perspectives. None of the indicators were rated excellent; six were judged good; nine were average; two and five indicators were rated poor and very poor, respectively.
Anwarul Islam and Jaber Hossain (2014) examined a total of 57 university library websites in Bangladesh to evaluate the resources and marketing information services available on the Web. The study found that websites are not fully utilized for the promotional purpose of the library resources and services. The majority of libraries have made no effort to offer online literacy classes, live support, copyright materials, online user surveys, networking, and soon.
Following the above literature, it can be assumed that many universities are either at an early stage of integrating Web 2.0 tools or may be planning to do so. It is also observed that there were no previous studies that considered a comparison of Web 2.0 features and e-resources available in selected university library websites of two types, specifically public and private in Bangladesh, therefore, is an attempt to bridge this gap. Hence, it examines a comparative analysis of Web2.0 features and e-resources in selected public and private university websites in Bangladesh.
The study used content analysis of library websites to collect data on Web 2.0 applications and electronic resources. Purposive sampling technique involved in selecting the university based on a specific purpose to enrich the study. Content Analysis was conducted from September 2017 to January 2018. The library websites were scanned to explore Web 2.0 applications and e-resources.
A checklist was developed for the collection of various Web 2.0 technologies and e-resources option with “Present” or “Absent”. A draft of the checklist was sent to two experts (faculty member and librarian) for the validity of contents and suggestions for further improvement. They validated the items included and also helped by giving valuable insights for improving the draft. There are almost 22 Web2.0 tools and 18 e-resources were explored to determine whether they are available in the mentioned library websites or not. To ensure the presence of each feature, twenty (ten public and ten private) library websites were investigated thoroughly. As a result, to complete the survey each of the mentioned websites was explored minimum 40separatetimes in the whole five months process. In contrast, though website development is a dynamic process and contents can be changed in a rapid manner, therefore websites were explored continuously for the duration of ending of the session.
A simple worksheet was used as a checklist to verify and collect data about the existence of social web tools and e-resources links on the library websites. Data were recorded in a Microsoft Excel sheet. The presence of Web 2.0 tools and e-resources was represented by the number 1, and absent is 0. After inserting all the items of the checklists, the numbers were added to calculate the total number of presence of instance in Public university environment and other is for private university. The percentage of each Web 2.0 tool was calculated based on the total presence Web 2.0 in both type of university (public and private), and the percentage of each type of e-resources was done by same process. The percentage of a single university in incorporating the number of Web 2.0 and e-resources was also calculated based on the total presence of Web 2.0 tools or e-resources by the total number of universities (both public and private).Then a comparison was made between public and private university library, the analysis of collected data have been interpreted with the help of tables, figures.
The population of the study: At present, there are 40 public and 101 private Universities in Bangladesh (University Grants Commission of Bangladesh, 2018), the top-ranked 10 public and 10 private universities of Bangladesh were considered for the collection of data. These universities were chosen from a list of top-ranked universities in Bangladesh published in studybarta, 2017. They have considered some factors to find out top ranked private universities in Bangladesh like, Teaching and learning innovation, Quality of Educators, Research Facilities, Financial Aid Services, Student to Faculty Ratio, Library and Laboratories, Graduation Rate, Size of the University, Jobs and Internship Opportunities, Updated Curriculum, Study Abroad Opportunities, Global Accreditation, Alumni Network, Cost of Tuition, Living, and More, Available Support Services, Safety and Campus Security Specially for the Women , Process of Freshmen Enrollment, Permanent Campus etc.(Studybarta, 2017)
For each of the universities, their library website was visited and data on their Web 2.0 features electronic resources and electronic databases were collected and analyzed. Web pages were also viewed in local search engines using keywords that indicate various Web 2.0 applications. Google has been used in many cases.
Data Collection Procedure:
The webpage of each university library was explored to identify Web 2.0 tools, electronic resources and relations to online databases. The study areas are as follows:
Web 2.0 tools: These are groundbreaking web tools used by most libraries for media literacy, technological expertise, and global awareness for creating, collaborating, editing and sharing the online contents.
E-resources: These are the Bibliographic or full-text databases that allow library users to search. They can be references to books, journals, theses, dissertations, Dictionaries or encyclopedias etc. That has been made available in an electronic format to users via their web pages.
|01||University of Dhaka||DU||www.du.ac.bd|
|02||Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology||BUET||www.buet.ac.bd|
|05||Bangladesh Agricultural University||BAU||www.bau.edu.bd|
|06||Shahjalal University of Science and Technology||SUST||www.sust.edu|
|07||Sher-e–Bangla Agricultural University||SAU||www.sau.edu.bd|
|08||Khulna University of Engineering & Technology||KUET||www.kuet.ac.bd|
|09||University of Chittagong||CU||www.cu.ac.bd|
|10||Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University||BSMMU||www.bsmmu.edu.bd|
|12||Independent University Bangladesh||IUB||www.iub.edu.bd|
|14||North South University||NSU||www.northsouth.edu|
|15||Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology||AUST||www.aust.edu|
|16||Eastern University Bangladesh||EU||www.easternuni.edu.bd|
|17||American International University-Bangladesh||AIUB||www.aiub.edu|
|18||United International University||UIU||www.uiu.ac.bd|
|19||University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh||ULAB||https://ulab.edu.bd|
|20||Daffodil International University||DIU||https://daffodilvarsity.edu.bd|
Table I. Websites of public and private universities and their URLs.
Table II and III show the availability of 22 common Web 2.0 tools on the selected public and private university library websites, respectively. A total of 142 occurrences of the 22 Web 2.0 tools were identified and assessed. They reveal that Facebook is the most common tool on the websites of both types of libraries, this tool accounted for 12.68 percent of all tools available of both types of university.
|9. Google +||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|10. Synchronous messaging/Instant Messaging||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|11. New Books arrival notification||1||1||1||0||1||0||1||1||0||0||6|
|12. Text-based chat service||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|13. OPAC link||1||1||1||0||1||0||1||1||1||0||7|
|14. Presentation sharing||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|15. Discovery tool searching||1||0||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||2|
|16. Remote Access||1||1||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||3|
|17. Customizable Website||1||1||1||0||1||0||1||1||1||0||7|
|18. Mobile Library site/phone apps||0||0||0||0||0||0||1||0||0||0||1|
|19. FAQ(Frequently asked question)||1||0||0||0||0||0||1||1||0||0||3|
|20. Feedback option||1||1||0||0||1||0||1||1||0||0||5|
|21. Site search||1||0||1||0||0||0||1||1||0||0||4|
|22. Google search||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||1||0||0||1|
Table II. Web 2.0 features available on the selected public university library websites.
|5. Really Simple Syndication(RSS)||1||1||1||0||0||1||1||0||0||0||5|
|9. Google +||1||0||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||2|
|10. Instant Messaging||1||0||0||0||0||1||0||0||0||0||2|
|11. New Books arrival notification||1||0||1||1||0||1||1||1||1||1||8|
|12. Text-based chat service||1||0||0||0||0||1||0||0||0||0||2|
|13. OPAC link||1||1||1||1||0||1||0||1||1||1||8|
|14. Presentation sharing||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||1||2|
|15. Discovery tool searching||1||1||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||3|
|16. Remote Access||1||0||1||1||0||1||0||0||1||1||6|
|17. Customizable Website||1||1||1||1||0||1||0||1||0||1||7|
|18. Mobile Library site||0||0||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||1|
|19. FAQ(Frequently asked question)||1||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||1||3|
|20. Feedback option||1||0||1||0||0||0||1||1||0||1||5|
|21. Site search||1||1||1||1||0||1||1||0||0||0||6|
|22. Google search||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||1|
Table III. Web 2.0 features available on the selected private university library websites.
A total presence of 56 Web 2.0 tools (39.44% of the public libraries total) are available on the public university library websites, with University of Dhaka and Sher-e–Bangla Agricultural University providing 7.04%, followed by the Khulna University of Engineering & Technology with 6.34%, Rajshahi University with 5.63%, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology with 4.93%, Bangladesh Agricultural University with 4.23%, University of Chittagong with 2.11%, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology and Jahangirnagar University with only 0.70%Web 2.0 tools.
In private university context, A total presence of 86 Web 2.0 tools (60.56% of the private university libraries total) are available on the private university library websites. The library websites of East West University has 13.38% of private university total presence of Web 2.0 tools , followed by BRAC University with 9.15%, the Eastern University Bangladesh with 8.45%, the Independent University Bangladesh and Daffodil International University with 6.34% each, North South University has 4.93%, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh has 4.23%, American International University-Bangladesh and United International University have 3.52% tools each, and Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology has only 0.70%Web 2.0 tool. Table IV shows a summary of comparison of common Web 2.0 tools available on all selected University libraries in Bangladesh.
|Checkpoints||public University||private University||Total|
|5. Really Simple Syndication(RSS)||0||5||5|
|9. Google +||0||2||2|
|10. Synchronous messaging /Instant Messaging||0||2||2|
|11. New Books arrival notification||6||8||14|
|12. Text-based chat service||0||2||2|
|13. OPAC link||7||8||15|
|14. Presentation sharing||0||2||2|
|15. Discovery tool searching||2||3||5|
|16. Remote Access||3||6||9|
|17. Customizable Website||7||7||14|
|18. Mobile Library site/phone apps||1||1||2|
|19. FAQ(Frequently asked question)||3||3||6|
|20. Feedback option||5||5||10|
|21. Site search||4||6||10|
|22. Google search||1||1||2|
Table IV. Comparison of common Web 2.0 tools available on the both selected public and private university library websites.
Both types of universities have same numbers of Facebook, Feedback option, FAQ, Customizable Website, Google search option, and Mobile Library site options. Some other tools such as Mash-up, New Books arrival notification, OPAC links, and site search options are common in both types of University library websites. Some other tools like Pinterest, YouTube, Google +, Instant Messaging, Text-based chat service, Presentation sharing etc. which are available only on private University library’s websites. The table shows that two tools LinkedIn and Flicker are not available in either public or private university library’s websites. Overall, the private University Library websites accounted for 60.56 percent of the total 142 tools used in both types of libraries, whereas the public University libraries comprise 39.44 percent of the total tools available.
Table V and VI show that a total 145 occurrences of 18 web contents/e-resources were identified and assessed. The table revels that, e-journals and e-books are the most common e-resources found on the university websites of both types.
A total 19 University (13.10 percent) both public and private has of e-journals and e-books on their library websites. This is followed by e-catalogue, which is found on the websites of 16 library websites (11.03 per cent), the link to Institutional Repository, publicizing libraries news, events, and resources are found on the 14 library websites (9.66 per cent) each, Theses and dissertations are found on the library websites of 12(8.28 per cent), whereas e- achieve/ newspaper achieve is found on the library websites of 9 (6.21 per cent), User Guide is found on the library websites of 8 (5.52 per cent), e-Referencing and e-newspaper are found in 5 library websites(3.45 per cent)each, Dictionaries are found on the library websites of 3 (2.07 per cent), WorldCat links and Encyclopedias are found on the library websites of 2(1.38 per cent)each, Manuscripts, Past exams and Google scholar links are found on the library websites of only one(0.69 per cent) each.
|1. Theses and dissertations||1||1||1||0||0||0||1||1||0||0||5|
|3. e-Catalogues/Classic Catalogue||1||1||1||0||1||1||1||1||1||0||8|
|7. Institutional Repository||1||1||1||0||1||0||1||1||0||0||6|
|8. e- achieve/ newspaper achieve/Newspaper Clippings||1||0||1||0||1||0||1||0||0||0||4|
|11. User Guide||0||0||0||0||0||0||1||0||0||0||1|
|14. Past exams||0||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||1|
|16. Google scholar||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|18. publicizing the libraries events and resources||1||1||1||0||0||0||1||1||1||0||6|
Table V. Common e-resources displayed on the selected publicuniversity library websites.
|1. Theses and dissertations||1||1||1||1||0||1||0||0||1||1||7|
|3. e-Catalogues/Classic Catalogue||1||1||1||1||0||1||0||1||1||1||8|
|7. Institutional Repository||1||1||1||1||0||1||0||1||1||1||8|
|8. e- achieve/ newspaper achieve/Newspaper Clippings||1||0||1||0||0||1||1||0||0||1||5|
|11. User Guide||1||0||1||1||0||1||1||1||0||1||7|
|14. Past exams||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|16. Google scholar||0||1||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||1|
|18. publicizing the libraries events and resources||1||0||1||1||0||1||1||1||1||1||8|
Table VI. Common e-resources displayed on the selected private university library websites.
Table VII provides a summary of comparison of the common e-resources available on the selected University library websites in Bangladesh. The results show that, out of the 145 web contents available on the selected University library websites, public University library websites has 62, representing 42.76 percent, whereas private University library websites have 83, representing 57.24 percent.
|1. Theses and dissertations||5||7||12|
|3. e-Catalogues/Classic Catalogue||8||8||16|
|7. Institutional Repository||6||8||14|
|8. e- achieve/ newspaper achieve/Newspaper Clippings||4||5||9|
|11. User Guide||1||7||8|
|14. Past exams||1||0||1|
|16. Google scholar||0||1||1|
|18. publicizing the libraries events and resources||6||8||14|
Table VII. Comparison of common e-resources displayed on the both selected public and private university library websites.
The web content/e-resources commonly available on the both types of library websites are Theses and dissertations, e-Books, e-Catalogues/Classic Catalogue, e-Journals, e-newspaper, Institutional Repository, e- achieve/ newspaper achieve, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, User Guide, publicizing the libraries news, events and resources, and Google scholar links.
Manuscripts and Past exams documents are available in public University library websites but not in private University.
Otherwise, Google scholar and e-Referencing tools are available in private University library websites but not in public University.
The tool Bibliographies are not present in both types of library websites.
The main objective of the study was to construct a comparative analysis of Web 2.0 tools available on selected public and private university library websites of Bangladesh. A thorough assessment of the web pages shows that the selected private university libraries are ahead in making Web2.0 tools available on their university library websites, whereas only a few have been integrated on the public university library web pages. The status of Web 2.0 applications on library websites can be considered to be in the developing stage in private university libraries. This is reflected in the total of 142 available Web 2.0 tools of which private university library websites have 86, whereas the public university library websites share the remaining 56. It is clear that the diffusion rate of Web 2.0 tools is higher among the private universities compared with public universities of Bangladesh.
Moreover, this study revealed that Facebook is the most common Web 2.0 tool available on both the public and private university library websites.
Regarding the web content, e-resources available on the websites of both public and private university library websites, the result shows that e-journals and e-books are prominent on the web pages in both types of websites. Both are attracting particular interest in e-Catalogues/Classic Catalogue. Institutional Repository is another prominent e-resources noted in this study. These e-resources, however, are comparatively less available on the public library web pages.This is reflected in the total of 145available e-resources of which private university library websites have 83, whereas the public university library websites share the remaining 62. It is observed that the addition of any e-resource by a selected university library website depends on the growth of the library web page and the demand by the users. Hence, it may be that private university libraries have patrons desiring more electronic resources be available from their websites. The advancement in adopting new technologies in private universities may be possible due to the following reasons: in private job environment staffs are more proactive because of their job insecurity; students always get priority because of their self-funding educational activity and less bureaucratic problems involved in their administrative procedure.
The fourth objective was to determine the main difference between common Web 2.0 tools available on the public and private university library websites. The results revealed that the private university library websites contain a number of advertisements for programs, services, and activities offered by the library. This can be a form of current awareness service or library advocacy/marketing. However, the web pages of the selected public university libraries are simple and contain only a few words. The web pages look unsatisfactory with limited contents, showcasing the activities of the library. The design of the websites of most of the library web pages of the selected private universities is more appealing. They are eye-catching because of the color design and templates, whereas most of the library web pages in the selected public universities are not properly designed and are less appealing. Furthermore, the private university library websites give their users the opportunity to interact with the library through the effective use of Web 2.0 tools, whereas this opportunity is limited as far as their public counterparts are concerned.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The results of this study showed that the application of Web 2.0 in the library has gained momentum but there is still a long journey ahead to popularize the Web 2.0 application in libraries. This research draws an overall picture of the application of Web 2.0 in university libraries of Bangladesh. It attempts to provide university libraries with helpful information to better understand how their peers apply Web 2.0 technologies.
The introduction of information and communication technology in libraries in Bangladesh has radically changed the way library activities are conducted. The use of Web 2.0 applications is increasing among the university library websites of Bangladesh and it is very positive sign that the adoption of Web 2.0 applications in both types of libraries is encouraging.
This study has several limitations. Firstly, the sample size, the study only covered ten private universities and ten public universities. Secondly, the research is completely based on content analysis, and there are some limitations especially for internal applications that are not publicly accessible and that may not be collected through content analysis. The passwords protected Web 2.0 tools are not covered in this study. Content development is a continuous process; therefore, repeated checks to the websites were made because of the contents change over the limited period of times.
The results demonstrate that private universities seem to utilize the potentials of these tools more effectively than public universities. It is important that libraries should think carefully about how to further develop and take full advantage of Web 2.0 tools to make them more meaningful to users.
Further study in the area of Web 2.0 applications may be expanded to investigate the utilization of web 2.o tools in other academic libraries of Bangladesh. Another possible study would be a comparative analysis concerning adoption of newer Web 2.0 based services between local and foreign libraries. Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are as follows:
- To make the dream of globalized learning practicable, university libraries have work to do. This includes making information services and information materials available on their library websites. This will enable users to have unrestricted access to the materials anytime anywhere through Web 2.0 tools.
- This is because the current information society is both dynamic and changing, and, as a result, new technologies and tools keep emerging in public university to go ahead with private university and with the trend of global environment.
- To cope with the rapidly changing local and global environment, bureaucratic procedure should be minimized in public university administration.
- Facebook and Twitter are very popular tools in libraries of the world for the provision of Current Awareness Service (CAS) among users. To implement these tools is a matter of willingness of the authority rather than budget.
- To implement Web 2.0 tools on a website, there need staff training and logistics of website infrastructure and adequate encouragement for public university staff for self-motivation.
- Universities (both public and private) all over Bangladesh should come up with a standard which will mandate their libraries to have a certain number of Web 2.0 tools and e-resources available via their university library websites. This will facilitate their services, especially the online reference sources.
- The repository of theses and dissertations is another important e-resource, so policies of the university or the willingness of the authors of the theses and dissertations to make their work available should be flexible.
- The universities of Bangladesh offering the LIS programs should integrate the Web 2.0 applications in teaching as a course. Thus, the future information professionals will get awareness about the potential use of these technologies.
- Hands-on practice workshops should be organized by the professional organizations like the LAB (Library Association of Bangladesh), BALID (Bangladesh Association of Librarians, Information Scientists, and Documentalists), etc.
- A series of seminars should be held to introduce Web 2.0 and provide actual operation opportunities to users. Only user’s information literacy in Web 2.0 application in the library, user participation in processes of creating, exchanging and sharing information will be realized, the service performance of library will be truly improved.
All Private University Ranking 2018 in Bangladesh. (2017, December 29). Retrieved 11
February 2018, from http://studybarta.com/private-university-ranking-2017/
Anwarul Islam, M., & Jaber Hossain, M. (2014). Marketing information resources and services
on the web: Existing status of university libraries in Bangladesh. The Electronic Library, 32(5), 742-759.
Asogwa, B. E., Ugwu, C. I., &Ugwuanyi, F. C. (2015). Evaluation of electronic service
infrastructures and quality of e-services in Nigerian academic libraries. The Electronic Library, 33(6), 1133-1149.
Baro, E. E., Joyce, E., Vera, E., & Godfrey, Z. (2013). Library Hi Tech News Web 2.0 tools usage: a comparative study of librarians in university libraries in Nigeria and South Africa" Web 2.0 tools usage: a comparative study of librarians in university libraries in. Library Hi Tech News The Electronic Library Is Library Hi Tech International Digital Library Perspectives, 30(3), 864–883. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-04-2013-0021.
Barraza, M. F. S., Smith, T., Mi, S., & Park, D. (2009). Article information: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2014-0077.
Bradley, P. (2015). Social media for creative libraries. Facet Publishing.
Casey, M. E., &Savastinuk, L. C. (2006).Service for the next-generation library. Library
Journal, 131(1), 40-42.
Chua, A. Y., &Goh, D. H. (2010).A study of Web 2.0 applications in library websites. Library &
information science research, 32(3), 203-211.
Garoufallou, E., &Charitopoulou, V. (2011). The use and awareness of Web 2.0 tools by Greek
LIS students. New Library World, 112(11/12), 490-498.
Han, Z., &Quan Liu, Y. (2010).Web 2.0 applications in top Chinese university libraries. Library
hi tech, 28(1), 41-62.
Hanaysha, J. R., Abdullah, H. H., &Warokka, A. (2011). Service quality and students’ satisfaction at higher learning institutions: The competing dimensions of Malaysian universities’ competitiveness. The Journal of Southeast Asian Research, 2011, 1-10.
Hsiao, K., &Bomhold, C. R. (2013). Library Hi Tech News Article information: Library Hi Tech, 32(3), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-04-2015-0024.
Hussain, A. (2015). Adoption of Web 2.0 in library associations in the presence of social media. Program, 49(2), 151-169.
H.Wordofa, K. (2014). Adoption of Web 2.0 in academic libraries of top African universities.The Electronic Library, 32(2), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-07-2012-0077.
Ikonne, C. N., Onuoha, U. D., &Madukoma, E. (2013). Marketing of information services in the
Social Media framework of communication. International Journal of Innovative Research in Management, 2(10), 1–10.
Johnson, K., &Magusin, E. (2009). Exploring the digital library: A guide for online teaching
and learning (Vol. 24). John Wiley & Sons.
Kajewski, M. A. (2007). Emerging technologies changing our service delivery model. Electronic
Library, 25, 4, 420-429.
Kehinde, A. A., &Tella, A. (2012).Assessment of Nigerian university library websites/web
pages. New Review of Information Networking, 17(2), 69-92.
Kim, Y.-M.&Abbas, J. (2010). Adoption of Library 2.0 functionalities by academic libraries and
users: a knowledge management perspective. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36 (3), 211-8.
Kimball, R., Ives, G., & Jackson, K. (2009). Comparative usage of science e-book and print
collections at Texas A&M University Libraries. Collection Management, 35(1), 15-28.
Kraft, M. A. (2007).Mashing Up the Internet. In Wood M.S. (Ed.), Medical librarian 2.0: Use of
Web 2.0 technologies in reference services (pp. 191-207). Binghamton, NY: Haworth
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Organizational Research Methods,13 (2), 392-394.
Linh, N. C. (2008). A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university
libraries. Library Hi Tech, 26, 4, 630-653.
Liu, S. (2008). Engaging users: the future of academic library websites. College & Research
Libraries, 69(1), 6-27.
Lukasiewicz, A. (2007). Exploring the role of digital academic libraries: Changing student needs
demand innovative service approach. Library Review, 56(9), 821-827.
Oak, M. (2016). Assessing the Library Users Expectations: A Select Study of Management
Institutions in Savitribai Phule Pune University (Sppu), Pune, India. International Journal of Library & Information Science (IJLIS), 5(3), 149-158.
Okezie, C. A. (2016). Types of Library and Information Science Publications Available in
Selected Academic Libraries in Nigeria. Journal of Library and Information Sciences, 4(1), 63-72.
Prabhakar, S. V., & Rani, S. V. M. (2017). Influence of social networking sites on library and
information centers. International Journal of Library & Information Science, 6(1), 83-87.
Prakash, I. N. (2017). Resource Sharing: A Library Perspective. International Journal of Library
& Information Science (IJLIS), 6(1), 19-22.
Public University Ranking in Bangladesh. (2017, October 04). Retrieved 11
February 2018, from http://studybarta.com/public-university-ranking-in-bangladesh/
Redden, C. S. (2010). Social bookmarking in academic libraries: Trends and applications. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 219-227.
Rehman, A., &Shafique, F. (2011).Use of Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries: Perceptions of Information Professionals in Pakistan Use of Web 2. 0 and Its Implications for Libraries: Perceptions of Information Professionals in Pakistan. Library Philosophy and Practice.
Rogers, K. (2015). Academic and Public Libraries’ Use of Web 2.0 Applications and Services in Mississippi. SLIS Connecting, 4(1).https://doi.org/10.18785/slis.0401.08
Rosen, C. (2007). Virtual friendship and the new narcissism. The New Atlantis, (17), 15-31.
Si, L., Shi, R., & Chen, B. (2011).An investigation and analysis of the application of Web 2.0 in Chinese university libraries. The Electronic Library, 29(5), 651–668. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471111177080
Tedd, L. A., & Large, J. A. (2004). Digital libraries: principles and practice in a global
environment. Walter de Gruyter.
Tella, A., &Oladapo, O. J. (2016).A comparative analysis of available features and Web 2.0 tools on selected Nigerian and South African university library websites. The Electronic Library, 34(3), 504-521.
University Grants Commission of Bangladesh. (2018). Ugc.gov.bd. Retrieved 11 February 2018,
Vasishta, S. (2013). Dissemination of electronic journals: a content analysis of the library
websites of technical university libraries in North India. The Electronic Library, 31(3), 278-289.
Xu, C., Ouyang, F., & Chu, H. (2009). The academic library meets Web 2.0: applications and
implications. The journal of academic librarianship, 35(4), 324-331.