Awareness, Acceptance, and Utilization of Benguet State University Open Access Digital Repository

Lauren P . KipaanBenguet State University

lkipaan@yahoo.com / lkipaan@gmail.com

Background of the study

E-resources are the toast of the time for their role in speedier access and retrieval of information (Bhatt, 2010). The emerging technologies have also revolutionized the information seeking behavior of users (Chee, 2013). They too are redefining the role of traditional libraries, giving rise to digital libraries or repositories. Digital repositories vary in their collections and in their complexity (Lester & Koehler,2007). They are computer based systems for management and distributing materials for easy access. Likewise, the digital library holdings can be accessed over the Global Computer Network (Bainbridge & Nichols, 2010). This is the reason why the presence of digital repositories is very imminent worldwide with the main purpose of providing access to information (Vaidyanathan, Sabbaghi, & Bargellini 2005). Digital repositories emerge mostly in institutions and they are globally accepted as means to publish knowledge. In the IFLA/UNESCO manifesto for Digital libraries (2010), Digital library initiatives are to help solve the problem of digital divide. That is, digital services open up new channels to a universe of knowledge and information, connecting cultures across geographical and social boundaries. In essence, for digital libraries, the collection must be recognized according to accepted principles and standards (IFLA, 2010).

To achieve this, the gap or the digital divide must be bridged. It is now through the use of open source applications, and open access publishing which brings great benefits to the academic world (McCulloch, 2006). Thus, it is indeed true that digital repositories are systems to manage information while open access concept is a part of complicated publishing models. And it seems that open access publishing is a natural way for university research to be distributed for the greater good (Saarilouma, 2006). More so if the monies paid to researchers come from public funds. The importance of open accessed is heightened by the report of the Directory of Open Access Repositories (DOAR, 2013). Accordingly, there are 2473 recorded digital repositories worldwide. Many of these repositories are maintained by institutions of higher learning. These in a way improve the visibility of universities (Olsbo, 2013).

On a global note, Europe dominates the presence of digital repositories since the European Commission promotes open access among its country members. It identifies open access as a core means to improve knowledge circulation (European Commission, 2013). North America has the same view as the European Union (EU) and in other parts of the world.

Purpose of the StudyNationally, the Philippines has fourteen (14) digital repositories but only four (4) are

registered with DOAR. This is to say, that the concept of open access digital repositories is starting to be accepted by the Filipinos. But just how acceptable it is remains to be seen.

The limited study on this topic is the very reason why this study was undertaken. Aside from this, is the fact that assessment of usability of digital libraries or repositories has no universal model and depends primarily with respect to target users, applications, and contexts (Chowdhury, 2006). Thus this study aims to know the level of knowledge of awareness, acceptance, and utilization of the open access digital repository (OADR) by the users of Benguet State University (BSU).

Methodology A descriptive-survey method was used in the study. Respondents of the study included

faculty members, non-teaching employees except those from the general services department, and students from all the colleges and departments enrolled during the second semester of school year 2013-2014. Number of respondents was derived using the Slovin’s formula. The data gathering tool used in the research was a semi-structured survey questionnaire which was tested for reliability and validity.

Gathered data were tabulated and illustrated in a series of tables with the use of descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics tackled frequency, weighted mean, percentage and ranking. Inferential statistics utilized was Pearson’s r. The data gathered were analyzed using the frequency, and weighted mean to evaluate the level of awareness, acceptance and utilization of digital open access digital library of BSU. F-test was used to interpret the difference in the level of knowledge along Awareness, Acceptance, and Utilization. It made use of the four level Likert Scale, frequency counts and weighted mean. Computed mean rating interpreted the respondent’s level of Awareness, Acceptance, and Utilization.

Results and Discussion

It presents the discussions on the Awareness, Acceptance along Ease of Use and Usefulness, and Utilization of the Open Access Digital Repository of Benguet State University.

Level of Knowledge of Respondents on the OADR of BSU in Terms of Awareness

Table 2 presents the level of awareness of the respondents of the OADR services of BSU. The Table shows that the respondents are “not aware” of the university’s OADR services. This result drives home a sad library scenario indicating that the library is lacking in the promotion and marketing of this service. This finding points out an important gap that a well-planned information literacy program can fill.

Table 2 – Level of Knowledge of Respondents on OADL of BSU Along Awareness

Awareness Overall (n-960)AWM DER

1. OADL is posted through bsulis.wordpress.com and bengsulibrary.twitter.com 2.11 NA2. OADL has link at the university website 2.41 NA3. OADL is posted through yahoo group 1.63 VMNA4. OADL is publicized in the university Newsletters (School organs) 2.20 NA

5. OADL is included in the library orientation & brochure 2.44 NA6. OADL is revealed through verbal referrals by librarians 2.04 NA7. OADL is searchable in search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc) 2.37 NA8. OADL is posted through library Facebook page 2.22 NA9. OADL is posted in bulletin boards (college displays & LED signages) 2.59 A10. OADL is publicized through print advisory and word of mouth 2.21 NA

Mean 2.22 NALegend:

AWM- Average Weighted MeanDER- Descriptive Equivalent Rating

Numerical Equivalent Mean interval Description1 1.00 – 1.74 VMNA- Very Much Not Aware2 1.75- 2.49 NA- Not Aware3 2.50-3.24 A- Aware4 3.25-4.00 VMA- Very Much Aware

The finding though is not something unusual. it is also very similar to the studies made in New Zealand and in Uganda. Accordingly, the graduate students in four universities in New Zealand have low awareness of the existence of institutional repositories (Stanton & Liew, 2012).

Level of Knowledge of Respondents on BSU OADR in Terms of Acceptance

Acceptance in its basic definition is a favorable approval or act of taking what is offered (World Book, 2010). It is the act of asserting to something influenced by ease of use and usefulness. The respondents’ acceptance is presented in tables 3a and 3b respectively.

Ease of Use

Table 3a is a picture of the acceptance of the respondents. The over-all mean of 3.21 is indicative of the openness of the respondents to the BSU-OADR. Indeed, the mean is bordering on “Very much acceptable” level.

Table 3a – Level of Acceptance of Respondents on OADR of BSU Along Ease of Use

Ease of Use Overall (n-960)AWM DER

1. The Open Access Digital Library (OADL) search function is user friendly. 3.23 A2. Terminology used is common to users and Instructions are easy to follow. 3.25 VMA3. Design and Display of OADL is enticing and used understandable graphics 3.18 A4. OADL has comfortable browsing features (user-friendly icons or buttons) 3.24 A5. OADL content is downloadable 3.26 VMA6. OADL displays evaluative content (abstracts, summaries, etc) 3.23 A7. OADL has visible link within the university computer laboratories and offices 2.97 A8. OADL is accessible 24/7 (non-stop) 3.19 A9. Display pages provide referral or links to more detailed information 3.22 A10. The OADL has available library support and help page to users 3.30 VMA

Mean 3.21 A

AWM- Average Weighted Mean

DER- Descriptive Equivalent Rating

Numerical Equivalent Mean Interval Description1 1.00 – 1.74 VMNA- Very Much Not Acceptable 2 1.75- 2.49 NA- Not Acceptable3 2.50-3.24 A- Acceptable4 3.25-4.00 VMA- Very Much Acceptable

Usefulness

The other aspect of acceptance as per the TAM model is usefulness. This is the extent to which a person believes that using the system will enhance his/her job performance.

The Table 3b shows a positive rating by the respondents on the BSU OADR in terms of usefulness. The overall mean of 3.05 interpreted as “acceptable” implies that the respondents are convinced that the BSU OADR could be useful to them.

Table 3b – Level of Acceptance of Respondents on OADL of BSU Along UsefulnessUsefulness Overall (n-960)

AWM DER11. Using the Open access Digital Library (OADL) enhance my research capability (search skill)

3.01 A

12. Using the OADL improve my academic capability ( school know-how) 3.04 A13. Using the OADL increases my academic productivity (school or research output) 3.03 A14. Using the OADL is a suitable tool to find institutional information (database) 3.14 A15. Using the OADL introduces me to institutional research references 3.25 VMA16. Using the OADL relates well in my study/research 3.03 A17. Using the OADL enables me to get information to reliable sources 3.10 A18. Using the OADL assures me that information is carefully evaluated 3.10 A19. Using the OADL saves my time 2.92 A20. Using the OADL is sufficient to address the university research needs 2.84 A

Mean 3.05 A

Level of Knowledge of Respondents on the BSU OADR Along Utilization

Table 4 shows the level of knowledge of respondents on BSU OADR along utilization. It shows that the respondents never utilized the OADR of BSU. There are many implications of this result. For one, the library introduced this service without a pre-survey among the respondents. The respondents do not have any idea of such service, hence their failure to use it.

Table 4 – Level of Knowledge of Respondents on OADR of BSU Along Utilization

Utilization Overall (n-960)AWM DER

1. I utilize the Open Access Digital Library (OADL) using my own internet connection at home

1.31 NU

2. I utilize the OADL using the internet connection of my friend/s or relatives outside the university

1.22 NU

3. I utilize the OADL using the computer in my classrooms/edtech rooms 1.38 NU4. I utilize the OADL using the wifi spots outside the university campus 1.22 NU5. I utilize the OADL using the wifi spots inside the university campus 1.24 NU6. I utilize the OADL in the internet cafes’ 1.26 NU7. I utilize the OADL using my mobile device/s (tablet, iphone, phablet, etc) 1.23 NU

8. I utilize the OADL within the main library’s internet workstations 1.52 NU9. I utilize the OADL within the unit/college library’s internet workstations 1.37 NU10. I utilize the OADL using the university ICT computer laboratories/ office computers

1.37 NU

Mean 1.31 NUAWM- Average Weighted MeanDER- Descriptive Equivalent Rating

Numerical Equivalent Mean Interval Description1 1.00 – 1.74 NU- Never Utilized2 1.75- 2.49 SU- Seldom Utilized3 2.50-3.24 MU- Moderately Utilized4 3.25-4.00 VU- Very Utilized

The overall result is similar to the study of Okello-Obura & Magara (2008) that few of the Library and Information Science students at Makerere University in Uganda access the library’s e-resources. The low access to electronic resources is due to poor information literacy and poor internet connections. In another study, it indicates that end-users in university settings in developing countries accept and use electronic library services. However, the usage of the digital library services is only at nine percent (9%) due to several factors which include among others the lack of awareness of the services or literacy programs and the facilitating conditions to use them (Tibenderana et al., 2010).

Finally, the result mirrors the reality that in the developing countries, the problem on utilization of web resources is attributed to many factors such as, lack of gadgets to use, connectivity issues, and economic stability of individuals.

Difference on the Level of Knowledge of Respondents on BSU OADR in Terms of Awareness

All three groups of respondents are “not aware” of the BSU OADR resulting to not significant in differences. This is to say that librarians need to exert more effort to suggest and market the existence of the BSU-OADR services.

Table 5. Difference on the Level of Knowledge of Respondents on the OADR Services Along Awareness

ItemsStudents Non-teaching FacultyN=891 N=36 N=33

AWM DER AWM DER AWM DER1. OADL is posted through bsulis.wordpress.com and bengsulibrary.twitter.com

2.27 NA 2.06 NA 2.00 NA

2. OADL has link at the university website 2.54 A 2.17 NA 2.52 A3. OADL is posted through ULIS yahoo group 2.07 NA 1.83 NA 1.00 VMN

A4. OADL is publicized in the university Newsletters (Shamag, Mt. Collegian, etc)

2.33 NA 2.08 NA 2.21 NA

5. OADL is included in the library orientation & brochure

2.64 A 2.06 NA 2.64 A

6. OADL is revealed through verbal referrals by librarians

1.82 NA 2.06 NA 2.24 NA

7. OADL is searchable in search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc)

2.49 NA 2.22 NA 2.42 NA

8. OADL is posted through library Facebook page

2.28 NA 2.11 NA 2.27 NA

9. OADL is posted in bulletin boards (college displays, electronic signage’s, etc.)

2.60 A 2.50 A 2.67 A

10. OADL is publicized through print advisory and word of mouth

1.93 NA 2.28 NA 2.42 NA

Mean 2.30a NA 2.14a NA 2.24a NAFc- 0.57; Ftab=3.35; p-value= 0.570 Interpretation=Not significant; Decision= Reject HoNote: same letter in superscript are not significantly different with other at 0.05 level of significance

Difference on the Level of Knowledge on the BSU OADL in Terms Acceptance

Ease of UseTable 6 shows the difference in the level of knowledge of the respondents on the BSU

OADR along Ease of Use. The student respondents are ranked the lowest in the acceptance of the BSU OADR along ease of use as reflected in their AWM of 3.10. This lower rating may be attributed to the limited usage of the students of the BSU OADR. It is also possible that the students are not well adept in the usage of computers.

Table 6. Difference in the Level of Acceptability of the Respondents on the BSU OADL

Along Ease of Use

ItemsStudents Non-teaching FacultyN=891 N=36 N=33

AWM DER AWM

DER AWM

DER

1. The Open Access Digital Library (OADL) search function is user friendly.

3.17 A 3.39 VMA 3.12 A

2. Terminology used is common to users and Instructions are easy to follow.

3.04 A 3.47 VMA 3.21 A

3. Design and Display of OADL is enticing and used understandable graphics

3.07 A 3.12 A 3.36 VMA

4. OADL has comfortable browsing features (user-friendly icons or buttons)

3.11 A 3.36 VMA 3.27 VMA

5. OADL content is downloadable 3.21 A 3.64 VMA 2.94 A6. OADL displays evaluative content (abstracts, summaries, etc)

3.07 A 3.42 VMA 3.21 A

7. OADL has visible link within the university computer laboratories and offices

2.78 A 3.06 A 3.06 A

8. OADL is accessible 24/7 (non-stop) 3.04 A 3.42 VMA 3.12 A9. Display pages provide referral or links to more detailed information

3.18 A 3.33 VMA 3.15 A

10. The OADL has available library support and help page to users

3.31 VMA 3.33 VMA 3.27 VMA

Mean 3.10b A 3.38a VMA 3.15b AFc=13.21 ; Ftab= 3.35; p-value= 0.00 Interpretation=Significant; Decision= Accept HoNote: same letter in superscript are not significantly different with each other at 0.05 level of significance

The non-teaching respondents are more welcoming in the creation of the BSU OADR as reflected in their overall mean of 3.38 interpreted as “very much acceptable.” This result may be due to the openness of the non-teaching personnel in terms of providing free content about institutional researches.

The faculty respondents just like the student respondents have an “acceptable” response to the ease of use attributes of the BSU-OADR. And just like the students, may be their exposure to technology is limited hence their lower rating compared to the non-teaching group. It is not so much that the non-teaching group is better off in terms of skills in technology, but it is because this group works in offices with computers, hence they have a better exposure to technology.

Difference in the BSU OADL’s Acceptability Along its Usefulness

Usefulness Table 7 shows that all three group of respondents accept the BSU OADR, when viewed

in terms of “Usefulness”. All are convinced that the BSU OADR could be useful to them.

Table 7. Difference in the Respondents’ in the Acceptability of the BSU OADL Along Usefulness

ItemsStudents Non-teaching FacultyN=891 N=36 N=33

AWM DER AWM DER AWM DER11. Using the Open access Digital Library (OADL) enhance my research capability (search skill)

3.11 A 2.92 A 3.00 A

12. Using the OADL improve my academic capability ( school know-how)

3.19 A 2.94 A 3.00 A

13. Using the OADL increases my academic productivity (school or research output)

3.10 A 2.97 A 3.03 A

14. Using the OADL is a suitable tool to find institutional information (database)

2.98 A 3.28 VMA 3.15 A

15. Using the OADL introduces me to institutional research references

3.23 A 3.56 VMA 2.97 A

16. Using the OADL relates well in my study/research

3.11 A 3.06 A 2.91 A

17. Using the OADL enables me to get information to reliable sources

3.24 A 3.11 A 2.94 A

18. Using the OADL assures me that information is carefully evaluated

3.20 A 3.14 A 2.97 A

19. Using the OADL saves my time 2.75 A 3.22 A 2.79 A20. Using the OADL is sufficient to address the university research needs

2.72 A 2.89 A 2.91 A

Mean 3.06a A 3.11a A 2.97a AFc= 1.82; Ftab= 3.35; p-value= 0.182 Interpretation=not significant ; Decision=Reject HoNote: same letter in superscript are not significantly different with each other at 0.05 level of significance (p-value must be below 0.05)

AWM- Average Weighted MeanDER- Descriptive Equivalent Rating

Numerical Equivalent Mean Interval Description

1 1.00 – 1.74 VMNA- Very Much Not Acceptable 2 1.75- 2.49 NA- Not Acceptable3 2.50-3.24 A- Acceptable4 3.25-4.00 VMA- Very Much Acceptable

Difference in Level of Knowledge of Respondents on the BSU OADL in Terms of Utilization

Table 8 shows the difference on the level of knowledge of the respondents on the BSU OADL along utilization. The mean of the students show that they “seldom utilized” the BSU OADR compared to the non-teaching and faculty groups that “never utilized” the BSU OADR. This result is expected as students are basically the main users of an academic library, be it physical or digital/virtual.Table 8- Comparison in Level of Knowledge of Respondents on the BSU OADL Along Utilization

ItemsStudents Non-teaching FacultyN=891 N=36 N=33

AWM DER AWM DER AWM DER1. I utilize the Open Access Digital Library (OADL) using my own internet connection at home

1.93 SU 1.00 NU 1.00 NU

2. I utilize the OADL using the internet connection of my friend/s or relatives outside the university

1.66 NU 1.00 NU 1.00 NU

3. I utilize the OADL using the computer in my classrooms/edtech rooms

1.81 SU 1.00 NU 1.34 NU

4. I utilize the OADL using the wifi spots outside the university campus

1.67 NU 1.00 NU 1.00 NU

5. I utilize the OADL using the wifi spots inside the university campus

1.73 NU 1.00 NU 1.00 NU

6. I utilize the OADL in the internet cafes’ 1.78 SU 1.00 NU 1.00 NU7. I utilize the OADL using my mobile device/s (tablet, iphone, phablet, etc)

1.58 NU 1.11 NU 1.00 NU

8. I utilize the OADL within the main library’s internet workstations

2.20 SU 1.14 NU 1.21 NU

9. I utilize the OADL within the unit/college library’s internet workstations

2.08 SU 1.00 NU 1.03 NU

10. I utilize the OADL using the university ICT computer laboratories/ office computers

1.67 NU 1.08 NU 1.36 NU

Mean 1.811a SU 1.03b NU 1.09b NUFc=85.61; Ftab= 3.35; p-value=0.00 Interpretation= Significant; Decision=Accept HoNote: same letter in superscript are not significantly different with each other at 0.05 level of significance (p-value must be below 0.05 to be significant)

AWM- Average Weighted MeanDER- Descriptive Equivalent Rating

Numerical Equivalent Mean Interval Description1 1.00 – 1.74 NU- Never Utilized2 1.75- 2.49 SU- Seldom Utilized3 2.50-3.24 MU- Moderately Utilized

4 3.25-4.00 VU- Very Utilized

Faculty usage is similar to the non-teaching respondents. This denotes that faculties are not the main users of BSU OADR. This non-usage may be due to their low awareness. This result is very similar to findings of earlier studies that faculty members are low in the utilization of databases, electronic information resources, etc. (Belen, 2007; Gakibayo et al., 2013). The overall results show that there is difference on the level of knowledge of respondents on the BSU OADR in terms of utilization.

Correlation of Awareness, Acceptance, and Utilization of Respondents on the BSU OADR

Table 9 shows the correlation of variables of awareness, acceptance, and utilization of student respondents on the BSU OADR. It displays that these variables do not perfectly correlate to each other as reflected in the computed Pearson’s r and p-value. This means that respondents may not be fully aware, accept the existing, and utilizing or not utilizing the BSU OADR but the dependency is not perfect. Table 9. Correlation on the Respondents Among StudentsVariable Correlates r p-value Interpretation

AwarenessEase of Use -0.20 0.585 Negatively Slight or weak correlationUsefulness 0.24 0.503 Slightly or weak correlationUtilization 0.05 0.894 Low or very weak correlation

Ease of Use Usefulness -0.63 0.050 Negatively High or strong correlationUtilization 0.20 0.582 Slightly or weak correlation

Usefulness Utilization -0.12 0.745 Negatively low or very weak correlationNote: p-value results matched to 0.05 significance level resulted to not significant (NS)

Legend:

Table 10. Correlation on the Respondents Among Non-teachingVariable Correlates r p-value Interpretation

AwarenessEase of Use

-0.29 0.412 Negatively Slight or weak correlation

±1.00 Perfect correlation±0.80-0.99 Very High or very strong

correlation±0.60-0.79 High or strong correlation±0.40-0.59 Substantial or moderate correlation±0.20-0.39 Slightly or weak correlation±0.01-0.19 Low or very weak correlation

± 0 No correlation

Usefulness 0.06 0.871 Low or very weak correlationUtilization 0.19 0.592 Low or very weak correlation

Ease of Use Usefulness 0.39 0.266 Slightly or weak correlationUtilization -0.46 0.19 Substantial or moderate correlation

Usefulness Utilization -0.13 0.723 Negatively low or very correlationNote: p-value results matched to 0.05 significance level resulted to not significant

The non-teaching respondents’ correlation on awareness, acceptance, and utilization resulted to a not perfect correlation as shown in the above table stating that there is no significant value that will show the perfect correlation.

Table 11. Correlation on the Respondents Among FacultyVariable Correlates r p-value Interpretation

AwarenessEase of Use -0.05 0.890 Negative low correlationUsefulness -0.43 0.219 Negative Substantial correlationUtilization -0.52 0.124 Negatively substantial or moderate correlation

Ease of Use Usefulness 0.15 0.682 Low or weak correlationUtilization 0.22 0.545 Slightly or weak correlation

Usefulness Utilization -0.03 0.934 Negative low or very weak correlationNote: p-value results matched to 0.05 significance level resulted to not significant (NS)

The correlation of awareness, acceptance, and utilization among the faculty members shared same fate with student and non-teaching respondents. This result further validate that awareness, acceptance, and utilization are totally independent and not reliant on each other.

Table 12. Overall Correlation Among RespondentsVariable Correlates r p-value Interpretation

AwarenessEase of use -0.18 0.890 Negative low CorrelationUsefulness 0.23 0.219 Slightly correlationUtilization 0.03 0.124 Low correlation

Ease of Use Usefulness -0.61 0.682 Negatively high or strong correlationUtilization 0.20 0.934 Slightly or weak correlation

Usefulness Utilization -0.13 0.934 Negative low or weak CorrelationNote: p-value results matched to 0.05 significance level resulted to not significant

The results on correlation of Awareness, Acceptance, and utilization of the BSU OADR show no perfect correlation. However, though the correlation is not significant in all three respondents, there are instances that the correlations are almost near the perfect correlation which zero (0). Those numbers that almost get the correlation are called tendencies that can be interpreted as possible factors that may influence the correlation.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions:

Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The level of knowledge of the respondents on the OADL of BSU in terms of

a. Awareness

The respondents are “Not Aware” of the OADR as information dissemination and promotion regarding the BSU OADR is wanting promotion.

b. Acceptance

The BSU OADR is “acceptable” to the respondents. Their acceptability of the OADR is influenced by the ease of use, and usefulness.

c. Utilization

Based on the scale, the respondents “never utilized” the BSU OADL due to poor visibility.

2. There is no difference on the level of knowledge of the respondents on the OADR of BSU in terms of awareness, acceptance, and utilization. The students, non-teaching, and the faculty are all “Not Aware” of the OADR. They are one though in accepting it, despite the fact that they “never utilized” the BSU OADR.

3. There is no correlation on the respondents’ awareness, acceptance, and utilization of the BSU OADR. These three variables are independent from each other.

4. A promotional plan can be drawn to enhance awareness, acceptance, and utilization of the BSU-OADR.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions drawn, the following recommendations are offered:

1. The promotional plan must be a team effort involving the librarians, students, concerned non-teaching personnel, and faculty.

2. Librarians must use varied marketing strategies in promoting BSU OADR. 3. Results of this study must be shared to thru public presentations4. The drafted promotional plan must be implemented and followed through.5. There must be a hands-on training for the users on the BSU OADR.6. Institutionalization of the Digital Repository by requiring all BSU based researches to

be automatically uploaded or deposited to the BSU OADR.

REFERENCES

Arokiasamy, M., and Veerachamy, M. (2012). International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development,1(1). Retrieved from www.prjpublication.com/ijlisrd.asp. Retrieved on February 22, 2014.

Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74, 252-259. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ . Retrieved on September 6, 2013.

Bainbridge, W. I., and Nichols, D. M. (2010). How to build a digital library. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Belen, L. L. (2007). A study on the acceptance of and preference for online journal databases of selected faculty in the University of the Philippines diliman. Journal of Philippine Librarianship, 27(1&2). Retrieved from http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/jpl/article/viewFile/1153/1200. Retrieved on June 3, 2013.

Beligan, S. S., and Lubrica, B. S. (2007). Elementary statistics. La Trinidad, Benguet: Benguet State University.

Boakye, J. (1999). Users’ awareness and use of science and technology collections at the university of science and technology (ust) libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, (31), 204-211. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/096100069903100404. Retrieved on September 5, 2013.

Brathwaite, T., and Dolabaille, A. (2013). Library orientation at the Alma Jordan Library: The way forward. Caribbean Library Journal. Retrieved from http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/clj/papers/brathwaite_dolabaille_dec2013.pdf. Retrieved on April 3, 2013.

BSU Digital Library (2010, ). Retrieved from: http://digilib.bsu.edu.ph. Retrieved on May 29, 2013.

Cendańa, A. C. (2011). Effectiveness of the University of the Philippines Baguio library marketing strategies. Unpublished thesis presented to Saint Louis University, Baguio City.

Chee, C. H. (2013, August 8). Are libraries ready for the big change? Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org . Retrieved on September 2014.

Chowdhury, Sudatta, Landoni, Monica and Gibb, Forbes (2006). Usability and impact of digital libraries: a review. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm. Retrieved on July 18, 2013.

Christensen, L. B. and Ruch, C. E., (1981). Hurricane message enhancement. Retrieved from http://texas-sea-grant.tamu.edu/WhatWeDo/PublicationsArchives/1980Publications/80-202.pdf. Retrieved on October 4, 2014.

Dagusen, J. (2009) The University of the Philippines Baguio Library: Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction. Unpublished thesis presented to Saint Louis University, Baguio City.

Davis, F.D (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339

De Sáez, E. (2002). Marketing concepts for libraries and information services. London: Facet Publishing.

Directory of Open Access Repositories. (2013). Retrieved from http://opendoar.org. Retrieved on September 13, 2013,

Düzer, G. (2013). Embracing twitter marketing the public library on social media. Retrieved from http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:624311/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Retrieved on November 5, 2014.

Engebretsen, T. (2005). Acceptance of Information Technology by Health Research Projects in Low- Income Countries: Intention to Use and Acceptance of Using EpiHandy (IUAUE). Master’s Thesis. University of Bergen, Norway.

European Commission (2013). Open access to research publications reaching 'tipping point' Retrieved from ec.europa.eu/research/era/2020_era_vision_en.html. Retrieved on October 19, 2013

Gakibayo, A., Odongo, J., and Obura, C. O. (2013). Electronic information resources utilization by students in mbarara university library. Library Philosophy and Practice, (869). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2055&context=libphilprac. Retrieved on May 8, 2013.

Hedstrom, M. (1998). Digital preservation: A time bomb for digital libraries. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/42573/10579?sequence=1. Retrieved on August 2014.

Hitchcock, S. (2013). The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: A bibliography of studies. The Open Citation Project - Reference Linking and Citation Analysis for Open Archives website: Retrieved from http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html. Retrieved on October 24, 2014.

Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., Wong, W., and Kar-Yan, T. (2002). Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical examination of individual differences and systems characteristics. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 97-124. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218929644?accountid=141440 on July 20, 2013.

IFLA (2010). IFLA/UNESCO Manifesto for Digital Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/puiblications/iflaunesco-manifesto-for-digital-libraries. Retrieved on August 26, 2013

Jones, B. (2009). How to use newsletter marketing effectively. Retrieved from www.designandpromote.com. Retrieved on June 7, 2014

Jose, A. (2007). Evaluation of digital libraries a case study. India: ISCD.

Jeng, J (2005). Usability assessments of academic digital libraries: effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, and learnability. Libri, 55, 96.

Karaliute, E. (2009). A case study of bidirectional metaphor: a computer as a human being and the reverse. Retrieved from www.su.lt/bylos/mokslo_leidiniai/jmd/09_02_23/karaliute.pdfRetrieved on June 5, 2014.

Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Bjoork B-C, et al. (2011) The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 6(6): e20961. Retrieved from doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020961. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com Retrieved on July 16, 2013.

Leong, J. (2006). Library planning using online group discussions. 27 (12), 8. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/. Retrieved on October 24, 2014.

Mason, M. K. (2014). Ethics of librarianship: Libraries, intellectual freedom, and censorship in the age of technology. Retrieved from MKM Research website: http://www.moyak.com/papers/ethics-librarianship.html

Miller, J., and Khera, O. (2010). Digital library adoption and the technology acceptance model: A cross-country analysis. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 40(6), 1-19. Retrieved from https://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/view/626. Retrieved on September 7, 2014.

McCulloch, E. (2006).Taking stock of open access: progress and issues. Library Review, 55(6), 337-343. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/0024-2535. Htm. Retrieved on August 27, 2013. Doi: 10.1108/00242530610674749

Okello-Obura, C., and Magara, E. (2008). Electronic Information Access and Utilization by Makerere University Students in Uganda. Evidence Based Library And Information Practice, 3(3), 39-56. Retrieved from

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/935. Retrieved on September 13, 2014.

Olsbo, P. (2013). Does Openness and Open Access Policy Relate to the Success of Universities. (N. Lavensson, Ed.) Retrieved from http://elpub.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/home. Retrieved on August 4, 2013,

Papastergiou, M. Antoniou, P., & Apostolou, M. (2011). Effects of student participation in an online learning community on environmental education: a Greek case study. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 20(2), 127-142. Retrieved from Doi:10.1080/1475939x.2011.588416. Retrieved on July 8, 2014.

Paquette, M. (2005). The Public-Access Movement. Perspective in Psychiatric Care, 42(2). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ Retrieved on August 27, 2013.

Park, N., Roman, R., Lee, S., & Chung, J. (2009). User acceptance of a digital library system in developing countries: An application of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Information Management, 29(3), 196--209. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.07.001 retrieved on January 25, 2013.

Parker, E. (1959). Use of bulletin boards. In Educational leadership (pp. 362-367). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_195903_parker.pdf. Retrieved on July 17, 2014

Roberts, D. (2009). Queenstown internet marketing seminar. Retrieved from http://xebidy.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Internet-Marketing.pdf. Retrieved on July 16, 2014.

Saariluoma, P. (2006). The importance of the free flow of information knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.humantechnology.jyu.fi/articles/volume2/2006/saariluoma-april-2006.pdf. Retrieved on September 30, 2013.

Salager-Meyer, Francoise (2012). The open access movement or “edemocracy”: its birth, rise, problems and solutions. Retrieved from http://www.aelfe.org/documents/06_24_SalagerMeyer.pdf. Retrieved on August 29, 2013.

Sharma, R. K., and Vishwanathan, K. R. (2001). Digital libraries: development and challenges. Library Review, 50(1), 10-16. doi:10.1108/00242530110363190. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ on June 10, 2013.

Stanton, K., and Liew, C. (2012). Open access theses in institutional repositories: An exploratory study of the perceptions of doctoral students. Information Research, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/17-1/paper507.html. Retrieved on August 26, 2012.

Straub, D., Karen, L., and Hill, C.E. (2001). Transfer of Information Technology to the Arab World: A Test of Cultural Influence Modeling. Journal of Global Information Management, 9(4), 6-28.

Straumsheim, C. (2014). Beyond ebooks. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/#sthash.kqCEFFq9.dpbs. Retrieved on September 7, 2013.

Tibenderana, P., Ogao, P., Ikoja-Odongo, J., and Wokadala, J. (2010). Measuring levels of end-users’ acceptance and use of hybrid library services. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology,6(2), 33-54. Retrieved from www.editlib.org/p/42334/article_42334.pdf. Retrieved on June 10, 2013.

Vaidyanathan, G., Sabbaghi, A., and Bargellini, M. (2005). User Acceptance of Digital library: An Empirical Exploration of Individual and System Components. Issues in Information Systems, 6(2), 279-285. Retrieved from http://iacis.org/iis/2005/Vaidyanathan_Sabbaghi_Bargellini.pdf. Retrieved on June 18, 2013.

Watson, A. B. (2009). Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles at the journal of vision. Journal of Vision, 9(4). Retrieved from doi:doi: 10.1167/9.4.i. Retrieved on Septber 9, 2014.

Wigand, R. and Hess, T. (2007). Open Access & Science Publishing: Results of a Study on Researchers’ Acceptance and Use of Open Access Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/open-access-science-publishing-results-study-researchers%E2%80%99-acceptance-and-use-open-access-publishing. Retrieved on August 26, 2013.

World Book Multimedia Encyclopaedia (2010). Version 14.0.0

Zakour, A. (2004). Cultural Differences and Information Technology Acceptance. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems, February 27-28, 156-161. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/. Retrieved on April 20, 2013.