Growth,subject areas,and application of research methods in user studies: A content analysis of articles produced by Pakistani authors

Abstract

Information science profession is concerned with information user and every development in this field has been designed to make it easier for the user to access documents or information. The current study examined user studies to provide understanding about the users, growth in user studies, topics, and methods of user studies. A content analysis method has been adopted and empirical research articles produced by Pakistani authors during the period 2001–2016 have been examined. Out of 518 empirical articles, 185 user studies were selected for examining users, subject and methods. Growth in user studies research was lower from the period 2001 to 2008 but number of studies increased significantly after 2008. Dominant majority of user studies collected data from educational institutions. Academicians and students were the most frequently studied users. Bureaucrats, judges, and other officials have not been examined for elicitation of their needs in spite of the fact that libraries have been established with government departments and courts. In respect of research areas of user studies, information needs and seeking behavior, use and skills of internet and social media, use of electronic resources and satisfaction of users with library services constitute 90% of user studies research. With respect to use of research methodology, quantitative approach (78%) is popular in user studies followed by mixed methods (10%), qualitative (8%), and multimethod (4%). More than one method is used in 14% user studies research. In case of frequency of research methods, questionnaire (72%) is the dominant method followed by interview (14%). The current study is unique because it identified popular topics and methods in user studies research.

Keywords

Investigation method research studies subject users

Introduction

Information science profession is concerned with information user (Wilson, 2000) and every development in this field has been designed to make it easier for the user to access documents or information (Wilson, 2008). End users are traditionally recognized actors in the process of information dissemination. Library and Information Science (LIS) shifted from system-oriented toward user-oriented research from 1985 to 2005 and emphasis have moved from services to users (Tuomaala et al., 2014). User study is a systematic examination of behavioral characteristics of library users by collecting evidence from them by using different research methods. According to Ucak (2004), user study refers to the study of relationship of human beings with information resources and services, and user specific properties. User studies are about people, behaviour, and contexts (Banwell and Coulson, 2004). Libraries and information centers provide services to different kinds of library users. Public libraries allow every individual to benefit from the services and resources. Academic libraries serve students, teachers, and other staff of colleges and universities.

The understanding about the needs, preferences and interaction of users with libraries is important for library planning and development. User studies help information managers to monitor trends and changes in behavior of information users. Libraries consider the provision of service to library users as the prime responsibility and user conceptualizations provide guidance to libraries and information managers in this regard. User study provide insight into the preferences of library users, their satisfaction level and motivation to use library resources etc. The results of user study can be used to improve library collections, services, and facilities. “The need for user studies ranges from collection development to service design, and from building and regulation of information centers to the creation of information policies” (Ucak, 2004: 122). This understanding can be achieved by conducting analysis of published research. Synthesizing information from published research about user behavior will be helpful to understand their needs, preferences, and their perception about processes and services of libraries.

Library professionals conduct research about library users to remain relevant about them Empirical and conceptual studies showed a rising trend in the investigations related to user’s view point (e.g. González-Alcaide et al., 2008; Hjørland, 2002; Tuomaala et al., 2014; Zhao and Strotmann, 2008).

In respect of examining the subject and methodology used in published research, different context such as subject, geographic, library type or combination of these contexts are used by authors for the selection and specification of research for analysis. Different authors in LIS field have conducted inquiries to examine subject and methodological trends. Subfield or sub-domains of LIS research have been investigated. Koufogiannakis et al. (2004) examined the area of reference service for exploring methodology usage. Herring (2010) explored methods in library services and distance education literature. Matteson et al. (2011) analyzed methods used in chat reference services. Gelber (2013) examined research methods usage in technical services. VanScoy and Fontana (2016) investigated the reference and information services (RIS) domain. Ullah and Ameen (2018) developed an account of all the methods used by previous authors through systematic review of studies.

Some authors specifically examined user study research. Khoo et al. (2012) examined ethnographic methods in libraries and library user research. González-Teruel and Abad-García (2007) examined information behavior research. Ucak (2004) selected user studies for Turkey and explored methods and bibliometric indicators. Wilson (2000) found that user-studies research did not help the practitioners of information work largely because they fail to find recommendations for service provision. The published literature has been examined from several points of view such as authors characteristics, subject, and methodology usage but subareas of user studies research is less examined. The current study makes a unique contribution by analyzing the studies by considering the user’s perspectives. The present study underlines the importance of users and their role for libraries. The study of growth in user studies, subject areas of user studies, types of users and methods used will provide holistic understanding in this area of research. According to Liu and Yang (2019), user studies is the popular research topic in LIS but the exploration of research areas, application of methodology have not been investigated in Pakistan. In this context, this study offers something new while also filling a gap in the literature by classifying the perspective on how users have been investigated by Pakistani authors.

Research questions

By citing examples from LIS literature, Tuomaala et al. (2014) claimed that LIS discipline “has undergone a major shift from investigation of systems and institutions to investigation of individuals, end users, or actors.” Similar views were expressed by Hjørland (2010) and he concluded that empirical studies on LIS provided clear evidence of the increase in the user’s viewpoint in the field. The present study intends to explore how library users have been investigated by Pakistani LIS authors. The following research questions are designed:

How much empirical research is User study?

Are the user studies witnessed increase among Pakistani authors?

What kinds of users are examined?

What are the preferred subject areas of user studies?

What kinds of methodologies are used to gain insight in user’s behaviors?

What kinds of methods are used to collect data about user’s behaviors?

Literature review

To elaborate the contexts of user’s studies, Wilson (2000) narrated different perspective in which user’s investigations are carried out. These perspectives included user as a communicator, information seeker, user of formal information systems, recipient of information services and user of information. User studies’ potential research covers a very wide range of areas such as users’ choices of books, reactions to on-line search outputs and in-depth analysis of the underlying information needs. This study advocated for action research and qualitative methods for conducting user studies. Action research can create a match between Users and different tasks such as plan changes in technology for rapid performing of tasks, appointing suitable personnel to deal with them and changes in organizational structures. Relationships of users with information work is “more likely to be found through the use of qualitative research methods, certainly as a preliminary to quantitative research and, possibly, as a complete alternative” (p.16).

Ucak (2004) evaluated user studies conducted Turkey. The user was studied in two ways. The examination of users related to an information center is considered as system-based approach. In second approach (user-based) the users were examined in natural setting without having relation to any information center. Out of 33 dissertations, 32 used quantitative methods and only one used qualitative approach. Survey is the frequently used method followed by historical and experimental methods. Use of bibliometrics was increasing and qualitative methods are not used generally. “In 85 percent of these theses, descriptive methods were used, while 6 percent used experimental methods” (p.125). Questionnaire was the dominant data collection technique used in 45% studies. “Questionnaires and interviews were used together in 15 percent of the studies, questionnaires and observation together in 9 percent and questionnaires, interviews and observation together in 18 percent” (p. 126).

Banwell and Coulson (2004) presented theoretical and practical examples from the on-going and large-scale JUBILEE (JISC User Behavior in Information seeking: Longitudinal Evaluation of Electronic Information Services) project. According to them, user studies cover a wide range of topics and foci. They narrated four foci including focus on user, use of sources, information system and organization. The user studies investigate topics such as user needs, contexts, motivations, expectations, tasks, use of a particular information source, barriers and enablers in the use of source, aspects of technology, design and innovation, and contextual aspects of the organizational setting. Methodology used in this project combined both the qualitative and quantitative approaches with the most commonly used in organizational setting. Questionnaires, interview, and focus group were used to collect data.

González-Teruel and Abad-García (2007) conducted a descriptive analysis of Spanish literature on information needs and uses literature. Findings revealed that the majority of articles used one method only 4% articles used two or more methods. They did not used any classification scheme for categorization of articles which used two or more methods. The survey was the frequently used method. Almost half of studies (48%) were concerned with university-based users such as academics and students followed by professionals (9%).

Mansourian and Madden (2007) reviewed the methodologies employed by researchers working in the field of information seeking on the web. They found that research in this area is growing fast. Variety of research methods have been used but the emphasis was on quantitative rather than qualitative because qualitative studies require a great deal of effort to analyze the behavior of users. Few studies used both the qualitative and quantitative approaches. Quantitative studies alone provide little insight into a user’s interaction on the web and more in-depth research on the cognitive and affective aspects of searching is necessary to enhance the findings from quantitative studies.

Wilson (2008) examined the past, present and future of information users. Information use theories did not appear until the 1980s but information user had become a curriculum topic in librarianship in United Kingdom. The future of user research uncertain. The prominent sub-fields of user research were health related and every day life. Information searching has emerged as separate from information retrieval research. In respect of growth of articles related to information seeking behavior in journals indexed by the Web of Science, there were only nine papers in 1990 and articles rose to 200 in 2006. The growth in this area has been exponential.

Khoo et al. (2012) examined the used of ethnographic methods in research relating to libraries and library users. Five main methods, observation, interview, fieldwork, focus groups and cultural probes were identified. Observation and interview were frequently used methods. Field work is used in less than half of the research. Focus group and cultural probes are less used methods. They found that only 17 studies (21%) used one method and 80% articles used two or more than two methods. Eight studies (10%) used or described four methods; 36 studies (44%) used three different methods; 25% used two different methods. The average number of research strategies used per study was 2.6.

Tuomaala et al. (2014) examined the viewpoint on the information-dissemination process. Most often, research articles combined several viewpoints on information dissemination (21%). Intermediary organization’s (16%), end user’s (15%), and developer’s (12%) viewpoints were also commonly taken. End user’s organization view point is 5%.

Milliari and Togia (2016) analyzed research strategies used in library and information science. Information searching, user education and information user study were popular topics in library and information science. They found the dominance of quantitative approaches in user studies. Survey (82%) was the most frequently used methods in information user studies. Case studies were used in user education research while secondary analysis in addition to ethnography were most frequently used in research on user study.

Godfrey (2016) conducted subject analysis of New Zealand research on Library and Information Science (LIS) and Archives and Records Management (ARM). The major topics of user studies include information needs, information seeking behavior, users, trial, response, views, perceptions, usability testing, accessibility, user needs, expectations, attitudes, information behavior, research behavior. User studies were only 4% (30 out of 762) of the LIS research and there was a decline in the topic of user studies. In 2004, the share of user studies was 7% which declined to 3% in 2014.

Zhang et al. (2018) examined the use of statistical methods in different areas of library and information science. They used inferential statistical method and graphic clustering visualization to explore relationship of statistics with different library areas. In the keyword list, after information (1298), the second position was occupied by the keyword “user (710). In case of keyword user, the count for parametric statistics is higher (169) as compared to non-parametric statistics (140). Keyword count for user is higher for predictive statistical correlation methods (144) as compared to predictive statistical regression methods (57).

Liu and Yang (2019) examined library and information science research in two categories of journals. Among the top 20 topics in tier one journals, user study was ranked at number 17. In case of tier two journals, user study was ranked at number 15 among the top 20 popular research topics.

Lamba and Madhusudhan (2019) analyzed the research topics the DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology for the period 1981–2018. They found that the user studies were among the highly researched areas of LIS in India during this period. Among the unique 29 topics, the number of occurrences (3) for user studies were witnessed in the recent three periods (2008–2011, 2012–2015, 2016–2018).

Miyata et al. (2020) identified topics in library and information science by using latent Dirichlet allocation and visualized the knowledge structure of the field its transition from 2000 to 2017. They used the topic Modeling student information seeking behavior. They searched five terms student, user, device, search, and database. The subtopics of information search and user research include health information search, search strategies, system of searching and motivation for search in diverse environments.

Methodology

A content analysis method has been adopted and empirical research articles published by Pakistani authors during the period 2001–2016 have been examined. Content analysis is a flexible approach as it analyzes the meanings of narratives objectively (Lin and Jeng, 2017). The content analysis used for the current study is of qualitative and quantitative nature. Content analysis is mixed approach that codes and interprets textual data to draw inferences about the questions (Jones, 2020). Content analysis is used through coding and conceptualizing qualitative data (Zhou et al., 2021). Manifest coding is used to examine user studies in terms of year, user type, approach to the subject, and research method. The content analysis can be considered as qualitative because subjective identification of themes and patterns is used to identify subjects and methodology trends by latent coding.

Sampling of user studies

Research articles published by Pakistani LIS authors in two local journals and various international journals published during 2001–2016 are selected. Books, book chapters, reports and conference papers are excluded. Articles published in two local LIS journals including Pakistan Library and Information Science Journal (PLISJ) and Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries (PJIML) were included because only two local journals are recognized by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC). For international articles, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstract (LISTA) and Library and Information Science Abstract (LISA) were initially searched. Boolean search operators OR and AND were used between Pakistan and with at least one of the words including information, library, librarian, and librarianship (Khurshid, 2013). Multiple searching techniques such as database searching, citation tracking, citation pearl growing, and expert advice are used to ensure comprehensiveness in search of literature (Matteson et al., 2011). Data used in the current study was collected for PhD dissertation. The synopsis for the dissertation was approved in 2017, so the sample of article was confined from the year 2001 to year 2016. During this period, 600 articles were published by Pakistani authors. Furthermore, the current study was confined to research articles published in current millenium to facilitate comparison with retrospective research and future studies.

Research articles were then categorized into Empirical and Non-empirical. Ullah and Ameen (2022a) adapted the scheme of Jarvelin and Vakkari (1990) to identify empirical articles. Out of 600 articles, 518 articles collected empirical data. Different authors have divided LIS into sub areas and user study is one subject area (e.g. Khoo et al., 2012; Lamba and Madhusudhan, 2019; Miyata et al., 2020; Wilson, 2008). Some authors criticized this classification. Hjørland (2010) noted the dichotomy of users versus systems is problematic at the conceptual level. The current study did not follow any prior scheme used for classification of user studies. To identify user studies, empirical articles are further categorized on the basis of data sources (human or others). User study articles are considered as those articles which collected data from library users or user data was collected from systems such as log data from websites. Only those articles (185) which collected data from library users are selected for the current study. Articles which collected data from libraries or librarians and other categories of articles were excluded from the current study (Table 1).

Table 1.

Share of user studies.

Types of studies	Frequency	Percentage
User studies	185	35.71
Others (Libraries and Librarians-267 Research-30, Professional issues-25, Education LIS-08, Institution or University-03)	333	74.29
Total	518	100

Classification of users and methodologies

Users were classified according to the scheme given by González-Teruel and Abad-García (2007). They classified information users into university academics, and students, professionals such medical doctors, journalists, industrial workers, etc., general users, researchers and other unspecified groups. Methodology has been classified on the basis of nature of data. The current study used classification scheme developed by Ullah (2021) for examining methodology trends in Library and Information Management (LIM) research. This scheme categorized methodologies into quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and multimethods. Mixed methods design mixes qualitative and quantitative data within a single study (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). In multimethod designs, the research questions are answered by utilizing two or more data collection procedures or research methods either from qualitative or quantitative traditions (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). Multimethod is further categorized into multimethod quantitative and multimethod qualitative.

Data collection and analysis

Data was collected from selected research articles and entered in Microsoft Excel. Coding categories were created in different columns were created and data was entered for tabulation, quantification and analysis. Data was exported to SPSS (Version 21) from Microsoft Excel. Latent and manifest coding was used to identify themes for methodology, methods, user studies and users. The themes for sub areas of user studies were also developed. The main characteristics of content analysis is to quantify the qualitative data (Sung and Bamkin, 2022). The qualitative themes identified in the thematic process were converted into numbers. Sorting data in SPSS was efficient and quick as compared to Microsoft Excel and it also contributed to ensure the integrity and validity of collected data.

Results

Share of user studies

Slightly more than one-third (36%) articles collected data from library users. Majority of papers were related to librarians and libraries without any input from library users (74%). In these papers libraries were examined by collecting data from library professionals or were investigated without collecting data from human sources. Thirty articles analyzed research by using bibliometrics, content analysis and systematic review etc. Professional issues were classified independently because these article neither collected data from librarians and not from users. Articles about LIS education made content analysis of syllabus. In the last category, two articles relate to institution and on article analyzed university rankings.

Growth in user study research

User study articles witnessed a significant growth after 2008. In first 8 years, 14 (08%) articles were published while in next 8 years, 171 (92%) were published. Between 2001 and 2008, there was stagnant growth. Few articles were published in each year till 2008. In the year 2009, there was a substantial increase in user studies. This momentum is still continued in subsequent years. Two third (67%) of user studies articles were published in the last 5 years (2012 to 2016) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Growth in user study research.

Year	Number	Percentage	Year	Number	Percentage
2001	01	0.54	2009	12	06.49
2002	00	00	2010	18	09.73
2003	01	0.54	2011	17	09.19
2004	00	00	2012	23	12.43
2005	03	01.62	2013	26	14.05
2006	03	01.62	2014	19	10.27
2007	02	01.08	2015	23	12.43
2008	04	02.16	2016	33	17.84
			Total	185	100

Types of users

In 12 articles, data was collected from two or more than two kinds of users. Due to this, the total groups of users are 197 in 185 studies. Dominant majority of users (88%) were affiliated with educational institutions. Students were the most researched users (60%) followed by faculty (22%). Alumni of library and information departments were also investigated by the authors. University staff, administrators and employer have fewer percentages. Professionals and community members have 12% share as respondents of user studies. Among professionals, journalists and doctors have responded more studies. Data was collected from community members in four studies. Each of publishers, parliamentarians, dairy managers and rural women responded in one study (Table 3).

Table 3.

Types of users.

Types of users	Frequency	Percentage
Member of educational institutions (N = 174, 88%)
Students	118	60.40
Faculty	44	22.33
University administrators	06	03.04
Alumni LIS	04	02.03
University staff	01	00.50
University employer	01	00.50
Professional and community members (N = 23, 12%)
Journalists	06	03.04
Doctors	04	02.03
Community members	04	02.03
Farmers	03	01.52
Internet users	02	01.01
Publishers	01	00.50
Parliamentarians	01	00.50
Dairy Managers	01	00.50
Women rural	01	00.50
Total users	197	100

Areas or subject distribution of user studies

The user studies tend to describe the user’s intentions, behviours, and skills and also user’s opinion about the existing situation and problems of libraries, information centers and related institutions. More than one-fourth (26%) of user studies research relates to information needs and seeking behavior of users, accessibility issues, gaps, barriers and anxiety experienced by the user during their interaction with information resources. Use of electronic resources (13%) is another popular area of research in user studies. The third most interested topic is the evaluation of library services, satisfaction of users with these services and effectiveness of libraries for provision of services to library users (12%). Use and skills of Internet, social media, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is another popular area of research with 18% share in LIS empirical research produced by Pakistani authors. Examining of information and digital literacy skills and usability of library website have 7% share. LIS education and curriculum review has attracted 10 authors. Other areas of user studies with low percentage include employability skills, awareness about repository, role of digital library for research quality etc (Table 4).

Table 4.

Areas or subject distribution of user studies.

Areas of investigation	No.	Areas of investigation	No.
Information need and seeking accessibility, gaps, barriers, anxiety, use	48	Information management, searching (web)	03
Use of electronic resources	24	Employability skills of LIS graduates	02
Library services satisfaction, effectiveness	22	Stress management	01
Internet use, accessibility, social impact	18	Impact of accessibility to databases on research productivity	01
Social media use	08	Impact of hospital library on patient care	01
ICT use and skills	07	Interpersonal relationship	01
Information or digital literacy skills	07	Publisher compliance in legal deposits	01
Usability of library websites	06	Effectiveness of library practicum	01
LIS Education	05	OPAC/Card catalog use	01
Knowledge sharing behavior	04	Knowledge of cyber ethics	01
Reading habits	04	Information service in media	01
Scale development	04	Role of digital library for research quality	01
Curriculum review	04	Community tele centers and rural development	01
Plagiarism awareness, avoiding and attitude	03	Awareness of Pakistan Research Repository	01
User education programs	03	Information systems role	01
Total			185

Methodologies used to investigate user’s opinion

More than three fourth user’s studies used quantitative approach and only quantitative data was collected. Questionnaire is the most dominant quantitative method used 139 times in quantitative research. Transactional Log Analysis (TLA) is used three times and Website Usability is used only once. The share of qualitative approach is 8% only. Under this approach interview is used 10 times, focus group and content analysis are used 2 times each.

In user study research, one method either qualitative or quantitative was used in 86% articles and only 14% articles used more than one method. The articles which used more than one method are categorized into Mixed method and Multimethods. Pakistani authors used mixed methods approach in 10% articles by combining qualitative and quantitative methods. All the mixed methods articles used questionnaire as quantitative method. Out of 14 articles, 12 used interviews for collection of qualitative data. Literature review, focus group and observation are used 2 times each. Experience or field work and web surfing is used only once. Multimethod approach is used in eight articles (4%). Seven articles used Multimethods qualitative approach and only one article used Multimethod quantitative approach. Interview, literature review, communication, observation, participatory observation, discussion, and communication have been used to collect data in Multimethod qualitative approach. Single article of Multimethod quantitative approach used questionnaire, observation, and discussion for collection of data (Table 5).

Table 5.

Methodologies used to investigate user’s opinion.

Name of methodology	Frequency	Percentage
Quantitative	145	78.40
Mixed Methods	18	09.70
Qualitative	14	07.60
Multimethod (Multimethod qualitative-07, Multimethod quantitative-01)	08	04.30
Total	185	100

Methods used to investigate user’s opinion

In a sample of 185 user study articles, 26 articles (mixed methods and multimethod) used two or more than two methods for collection of data from users. Therefore, 225 methods are used by authors to collect empirical data from users. Questionnaire (72%) is the frequently used method followed by Interview (14%). Content analysis is used in 10 articles. Observation, Focus Group and Discussion are used in five articles. Three authors used TLA to examine the use of electronic resources by library users by extracting data from library website. Experience, Communication, Participatory Observation and Guided Tour are used only once to analyze the opinions of users (Table 6).

Table 6.

Methods used to investigate user’s opinion.

Name of method	Frequency	Percentage
Questionnaire	161	71.55
Interview	31	13.77
Content Analysis (Content analysis-4, Document analysis-3, Web content analysis-3, Web surfing-1)	11	04.88
Observation	05	02.22
Focus group	05	02.22
Discussion	05	02.22
Transactional Log Analysis (TLA),	03	01.33
Field work or experience	01	00.44
Communication	01	00.44
Participatory observation	01	00.44
Guided Tour	01	00.44
Total	225	100%

Discussion

For selection of sample of user studies, user approach was used. Those articles are considered as user studies which have collected data from library users. More than one-third articles collected data from library users. The comparison with prior studies is not possible because classification scheme used for separation of user studies is different. Prior studies separated user studies by taking a subject approach but the current study used user approach for classification. Growth in user studies research was lower from the period 2001 to 2008 but number of studies increased significantly after 2008. Among 12 articles published during three 8 years, three collected data from users of other countries. Less growth during this period may be due the lower productivity during the first 8 years of the study (Ullah and Ameen, 2021). This growth may be due to the growth in LIS education programs in university libraries across Pakistan.

Dominant majority of user studies collected data from educational institutions. Academicians and students were the most frequently studied users and while administrators have less share. According to Ucak (2004), the higher participation of academicians and students in user studies “can be explained on the grounds that their use of information is intensive” (p.127). Faculty was part of one-third studies as compared to students. Dominant majority of faculty members belongs to universities. Faculty of three colleges and one school participated in user studies. Like faculty, dominant majority of students were studying in universities. The colleges are in huge numbers as compared to universities but very few studies collected data from college students. The percentage of participation from university administrators was lower as compared to faculty. Data is not collected from bureaucrats, judges and other officials in spite of the fact that libraries have been established with government departments and courts. Only one study related to parliamentarians. It may be due the fact that these powerful communities either do not respond or may consider research as less important.

In respect of research areas of user studies, information needs and seeking behavior, use and skills of internet and social media, use of electronic resources and satisfaction of users with library services constitute 90% of user studies research. Research publishing has increased manifold but the areas such as research data management, role of libraries in research and research skills of users remained less explored during this period. Library and information management systems is also an important area of research. User may feel difficulty in the use of these systems but only one study explored issues and priorities in the use of card catalog and online public access catalog. Majority of studies related to social media, ICT and internet examined use and level of skills and did not examine its impact on academic performance and predictor of use of library resources etc. Only few studies examined the impact of ICT, internet and social media education and social relationship (e.g. Ahmad et al., 2016; Arif and Kanwal, 2016). Use of social media in libraries have been increased significantly but none of the study in the sample examined issues of library users about use of social media and internet in libraries.

With respect to use of research methodology, quantitative approach (78%) is popular in user studies followed by mixed methods (10%), qualitative (8%) and multimethod (4%). More than one method is used in 14% user studies research. The use of quantitative approach is higher in user studies as compared to overall quantitative empirical research (56%) produced by Pakistani authors. The use of more than one method was half in user studies articles as compared to overall empirical research (29%) produced by Pakistani authors. Application of single qualitative method is lower (8%) as compared to overall qualitative (14%) empirical research (Ullah and Ameen, 2022b). It shows the dominance of quantitative methodology in user study articles. Earlier research conducted about the use of methods in user studies did not use explicitly the terms mixed methods or multimethod and described the combination of different methods (Ucak, 2004). Measures proposed by Ullah and Rafiq (2021) for education and learning of research methodologies and methods can be used to develop awareness about methods. The current study used an explicit classification scheme for categorization of methodology. Questionnaire is the most dominant in quantitative research and interview is the most used qualitative method. Questionnaire and interview were two dominant methods used in mixed methods studies. Multimethod qualitative used interview, literature review, communication, observation, participatory observation, discussion and communication. Only one article used multimethod quantitative approach. In case of frequency of research methods, questionnaire (72%) is the dominant method followed by interview (14%).

Conclusion

To conclude, it may be stated that user studies saw a significant increase in later half of the selected period (2009–16). Different user groups were studied but students and faculty were frequently examined and community members are almost disregarded. Majority of the users were affiliated with universities and faculty and students of colleges got less attention for collecting user studies data. The share of user studies is 36% in the overall empirical research (518) produced by Pakistani authors from 2001 to 2016. Library users other than academia may be approached by researcher to develop diverse opinion of users. Topics of research in the user studies are identified. The subject distribution of user studies shows the areas which are not explored by Pakistani researchers. Quantitative methodology is dominant but user studies research also used more than one method in a single study. Questionnaire is the dominant method used in quantitative and mixed methods articles and interview is the dominant qualitative method.

The findings of the study will prompt libraries to think in terms of broader social and cultural values they offer to communities and users. These subareas of user studies will not only help researchers to determine the themes or subfields of user studies but also helps them to compare with new fields in this area over time. “It seems likely that the need to understand how people search for and use information is likely to continue and, as technologies change and information services continue to develop, the understanding gained may become more and more important for the effective design of systems and services” (Wilson, 2008: 463). Content analysis of the use studies can be used to synthesis findings for further planning and decision making. It will be interesting to find how library users perceive libraries and their own skills and preferences. but very little work is published about understanding the overall dynamics and holistic picture of users. The current study urges the creation of an information policy for getting planned collection of data about user’s needs, and preferences for betterment of facilities and services.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.)

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ahsan Ullah

Author biographies

Dr. Ahsan Ullah is a Senior Librarian at Government Associate College, Pindi Bhattian Hafizabad, Pakistan. He has completed his PhD from the Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. His dissertation relates to the use of research methodology in library and information science, especially in Pakistan. His research interests are library management, research methods, repositories, and training of library professionals in Pakistan. His articles are published in Library and Information Science Research, Information Development, Scientometrics and Library Management.

Email: ahsanullah_libr@yahoo.com

Dr. Kanwal Ameen is Vice Chancellor University of Home Economics, Lahore Pakistan. She has authored more than 120 publications, including journal articles, conference proceedings, books, and book chapters. She serves on the editorial advisory boards of several international journals. Her work has been recognized with the receipt of awards such as a Fulbright for postdoctoral research at the University of Missouri, Columbia; the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan’s Best Teacher Award; the Pakistan Library Association’s Life Time Achievements Award; and the Asian Library Leaders Award for Professional Excellence—India.

Email: kanwal.ameen@gmail.com

References

Arif

Kanwal

(2016) Adoption of social media technologies and their impact on students’ academic performance: The only way for future survival of distance education students in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries 18(1): 25–36.

Banwell

Coulson

(2004) Users and user study methodology: The JUBILEE project. Information research 9(2): 9–2.

Creswell

Plano Clark

(2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Gelber

(2013) Five years of empirical research in the area of technical services: An examination of selected peer-reviewed journals, 2007–2011. Technical Services Quarterly 30(2): 166–186.

Godfrey

(2016) New Zealand Published LIS and ARM Research, 2004-2014: A Subject Analysis. Master Thesis, School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington.

González-Alcaide

Castelló-Cogollos

Navarro-Molina

, et al. (2008) Library and information science research areas: Analysis of journal articles in LISA. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(1): 150–154.

González-Teruel

Abad-García

(2007) Information needs and uses: An analysis of the literature published in Spain, 1990–2004. Library & Information Science Research 29(1): 30–46.

Herring

(2010) Research on libraries and distance education: An analysis of articles published 1999–2009. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning 4(3): 137–146.

Hjørland

(2002) Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53(4): 257–270.

10.

Hjørland

(2010) The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(2): 217–237.

11.

Jarvelin

Vakkari

(1990) Content analysis of research articles in library and information science. Library & information science research 12(4), 395–421.

12.

Jones

(2020) Social justice in library science programs: A content analysis approach. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 52(4): 1102–1109.

13.

Khoo

Rozaklis

Hall

(2012) A survey of the use of ethnographic methods in the study of libraries and library users. Library & Information Science Research 34(2): 82–91.

14.

Khurshid

(2013) Contributions of Pakistani authors to foreign library and information science journals. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 65(4): 441–460.

15.

Koufogiannakis

Slater

Crumley

(2004) A content analysis of librarianship research. Journal of Information Science 30(3): 227–239.

16.

Lamba

Madhusudhan

(2019) Mapping of topics in DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, India: A study. Scientometrics 120(2): 477–505.

17.

Lin

Jeng

(2017) Using content analysis in LIS research: Experiences with coding schemes construction and reliability measures. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries 4(1): 87–95.

18.

Liu

Yang

(2019) Popular research topics in the recent journal publications of library and information science. The journal of Academic Librarianship 45(3): 278–287.

19.

Malliari

Togia

(2017) An analysis of research strategies of articles published in Library Science journals: The example of Library and Information Science Research. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries 5(4): 805–818.

20.

Mansourian

Madden

(2007) Methodological approaches in web search research. The Electronic Library 25(1): 90–101.

21.

Matteson

Salamon

Brewster

(2011) A systematic review of research on live chat service. Reference and User Services Quarterly 51(2): 172–190.

22.

Miyata

Ishita

Yang

, et al. (2020) Knowledge structure transition in library and information science: Topic modeling and visualization. Scientometrics 125(1): 665–687.

23.

Sung

Bamkin

(2022) Social impact of mobile libraries on rural children in Taiwan: A qualitative content analysis. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. Epub ahead of print 19 June 2022. DOI: 10.1177/09610006221113373

24.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(1998) Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Tuomaala

Järvelin

Vakkari

(2014) Evolution of library and information science, 1965–2005: Content analysis of journal articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(7): 1446–1462.

26.

Ucak

(2004) User studies in Turkey: An evaluation of dissertations. Information Development 20(2): 122–129.

27.

Ullah

(2021) Research methodology trends in library and Information management: A study of scholarly literature produced by Pakistani authors. PhD Dissertation. Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

28.

Ullah

Ameen

(2018) Account of methodologies and methods applied in LIS research: A systematic review. Library & Information Science Research 40(1): 53–60.

29.

Ullah

Ameen

(2021) Relating research growth, authorship patterns and publishing outlets: A bibliometric study of LIS articles produced by Pakistani authors. Scientometrics 126: 9029–8047.

30.

Ullah

Ameen

(2022a) Statistical analysis used in LIS research produced by Pakistani authors. Online Information Review 46(4): 698–714.

31.

Ullah

Ameen

(2022b) Examining the use of methodological pluralism in LIS empirical research produced by Pakistani authors. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science submitted.

32.

Ullah

Rafiq

(2021) Education and learning about research methodology: Views of LIS authors in Pakistan. Information Development. Epub ahead of print 15 June 2021. DOI: 10.1177/02666669211022022

33.

VanScoy

Fontana

(2016) How reference and information service is studied: Research approaches and methods. Library & Information Science Research 38(2): 94–100.

34.

Wilson

(2008) The information user: Past, present and future. Journal of Information Science 34(4): 457–464.

35.

Wilson

(2000) Recent trends in user studies: Action research and qualitative methods. Information research 5(3): 1–20.

36.

Zhang

Wang

Zhao

, et al. (2018) Applications of inferential statistical methods in library and information science. Data and Information Management 2(2): 103–120.

37.

Zhao

Strotmann

(2008) Information science during the first decade of the web: An enriched author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(6): 916–937.

38.

Zhou

Ying

(2021) Conceptualising China’s approach to ‘Internet Plus Government Services’: A content analysis of government working plans. Information Development 37(4): 633–646.