4.3 Predictors of users’ preferences for digital information
4.3.2 Perceived usefulness
63 between perceived ease of digital resources and the age of respondents. A relationship with either gender or job level of respondents was not apparent.
64 overall, 18 (76%) respondents (38% strongly agree + 38% agree) perceived digital information to be useful. Five (21%) of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed on the perceived usefulness of digital information and only one (3%) respondent disagreed on the perceived usefulness of digital information.
Three questions were asked to measure usefulness of digital information in the focus group discussions. The first question required the respondents to state the effect of digital resources on the nature of their work (see Appendix C, question 3). The students agreed that digital information was much more abundant, up-to-date and allowed access to a lot more relevant information within a short space of time, compared to print. In a discussion with the Research Assistants, there was general consensus that digital information made them more productive.
One noted:
The fact that l have access to the information that l want on my PC saves me a great deal; l don’t need to leave my desk. That automatically speeds up my workflow because all the time of running around is channelled towards work.
Another Research Assistant emphasised the usefulness of digital resources, pointing out that:
While the older papers are still relevant, it is good to be following the new developments and trends of digital scholarship. Our peers and colleagues are way ahead of us in terms of using digital resources, that gap should quickly be closed, we should try keep pace otherwise we will never catch-up.
In a discussion with Scientists, there was mixed feelings towards the usefulness of digital resources, although the majority felt it was an important resource. One respondent supported the usefulness of digital resources, saying:
The aspect of being able to work remotely makes digital information quite useful. I can easily work from anywhere, during my field trips, when l am travelling or at home. I can carry around lots of information on a laptop, l do not have to wait to get back to the office or the library for access, l can retrieve my information anywhere, anytime.
Another valuable point mentioned was that “...having access to the latest methodologies online improves my quality of work.”
65 Conversely, three Scientists strongly challenged the usefulness of digital resources, citing the rampant misuse and plagiarism of digital content by scholars. One respondent stressed that:
I have repeatedly noticed authors and students taking digital shortcuts by scanning documents via search engines and doing copy and paste. Often the reference is not the correct one – but simply Googled with a keyword or two. This compromises the quality of work and makes a mockery of information management.
The three Scientists felt that critical review of literature and use of authentic sources was slowly being ignored by many scholars who are taking the easy root of ‘browsing’ e- resources. They reasoned that use of digital information was more harmful to organisations that did not have adequate subscriptions to online databases, stating that users were resorting to free content available online, some of which is not authentic.
The second question requested the respondents to state how they had benefited from using digital information (see question 5, Appendix C). In all the discussion groups, a variety of benefits were identified by respondents, including those respondents who were challenging the usefulness of digital information. Respondents identified, among other benefits, the ability to access current information, to readily share information with colleagues and to work faster. One Research Assistant shared an interesting point:
Digital resources make it very quick to see whether a certain article is useful or not by reading the abstract or previewing information without necessarily having to locate the whole item.
One student was happy that, “...now more time is spent on writing and synthesising and less time sifting through books and articles.” In a discussion with the Scientists, they pointed out that digital resources allowed access to information that was otherwise difficult to get hold of in other media and, more so, that was not available in the library. From the researcher’s observations and experience as a librarian, this was true because often times a user, for example, would request an article or a book chapter that is only available in the USA at the Smithsonian Library. Getting the hard copy sent would be a considerable risk by the supplying library and would take time; but with the advent of e-resources the material can be made available faster and easier by scanning and sending it via e-mail.
66 While discussing reasons that influenced the use of digital resources (see Appendix C, question 6), the researcher noted that responses given to address this question revealed both ease of use and usefulness of digital information. A number of respondents highlighted the benefits they had discussed earlier. A few points were further raised, which included increased productivity, availability and accessibility of vast amounts of digital resources which allowed them to carry out their duties much faster and more efficiently.
On average, the majority of the respondents perceived digital information to be useful, with a few not supporting or denying the perceived usefulness of digital information. At the same time, the findings reflect a correlation between age and perceived usefulness of digital resources. Of the four (16%) respondents above 50 years, three (12%) strongly challenged the usefulness of digital resources. These respondents were Scientists, who represent a generation of people who used print material for most of their lives and their appreciation of digital resources is low. Thus the findings reflect a noticeable correlation between perceived usefulness of digital resources with age and job levels of respondents. Although the figures reflecting these findings are small, it has to be kept in mind that this is a case study with only 26 respondents and an in-depth analysis of all findings is crucial.