









































Listen and Learn  177

Mama Don’t Take My 
Codex/Tome Away1

Strategies/Best Practices for Partnering 
New/Reluctant Users with Academic 
eBooks
Ryan Douglas Shrauner, Baptist Seminary of Kentucky

ABSTR ACT Many readers of academic books prefer reading on paper. 
In many of our contexts, however, avoiding academic eBooks is becom-
ing less and less of an option as students (as well as other users) have 
few viable opportunities for accessing print-on-paper information if 
that content is already available to them in electronic form. This session 
primarily considered ways in which librarians and information profes-
sionals can demystify and make useful the academic eBook for the 
(disinclined) user. 

Currently, we have a mixed bag of experiences regarding how the 
academic eBooks in our collections operate and we don’t yet know 
what the academic eBook of the future will look like or be able to offer 
to our readers. This session explored some options for both preparing 
the uninitiated for the variety of eBooks they will encounter, as well as 
consider some point-of-service strategies that may prevent a research 
conversation from ending abruptly when paper resources on a topic 
are scarce. How can we best help the resources that we have access to 
currently be more informative for our readers?

MISMATCH

“It is no wonder that, when the library has been extending its scope, 
changing its outlook and altering its very character and functions, 
there should not be adequate understanding among the public as 
to what has been going on.”2 Academic eBooks can present partic-
ular challenges; without a plan for productively connecting them 



178  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

with readers, libraries might want to consider for whom they are 
acquiring (and paying for) them. David W. Lewis concludes his book 
Reimagining the Academic Library with ten concrete steps to prepare 
academic libraries for the future. The first among them is to “retire 
the print collection now” with the implication seeming to be that the 
past is analog/print and the present/future is digital.3 It is beyond 
the scope of this presentation to consider the larger argument that 
Lewis is making, but on this particular point there is a sense that 
academic libraries are being advised to switch from a horse to a 
bicycle midstream. Before switching, libraries need to train and 
equip staff and readers. 

For present users of academic libraries, questions of preference 
are important but questions of usability are paramount: if a theologi-
cal library were able to complete the Herculean task of retiring the 
print collection efficiently and effectively, how would users make the 
transition to digital reading? Richard M. Adams asserts that, despite 
the proliferation of digital containers for what we still refer to as books, 
“the reading habits of our patrons remain the same.”4 Adams argues 
that we are in a sort of “incunabula period” somewhat like the time 
following the invention of the printing press when printed books 
closely followed the forms and styles of their manuscript counter-
parts. It may be true that the eBook will eventually become signifi-
cantly different than digitized versions of the printed page, but we 
need to pair the eBooks that we have now with the readers that we 
have now.

The items that we call eBooks which we have now vary in quality 
and accessibility along several axes. Discoverability can be a problem, 
even in libraries employing federated search tools. Points of potential 
failure with regard to both the accessibility and usability of library 
eBooks are multiple and (somewhat) notorious.5 Loan periods can 
vary by platform and bear little resemblance to those of a library’s 
print collection. Some items considered academic eBooks work fairly 
smoothly for users with little more than a modicum of digital liter-
acy, while others require users to have both tenacity and diligence, 
sometimes even with direct library staff intervention. There is a near 
imperative for library staff to know their eBook collections in facets 
beyond the ways they know their physical collections, because of the 
numerous variables with regard to discoverability, accessibility, and 



Listen and Learn  179

usability with titles grouped under this heading “academic eBooks.” 
There is a parallel need for library staff to be able to quickly gauge both 
a reader’s degree of digital literacy and tolerance for deviation from 
the expectation that eBooks will be like print books. At some point 
a mismatch between the knowledge and effort required for using a 
particular resource and the patience a user brings to the encounter 
creates a situation which renders a title all but unusable (or worse). 
Readers are interested in reading: having access to the material rele-
vant to their interest. Few relish having to learn the intricacies of 
making resources usable.6

There is a mismatch between the assumption/presumption of 
an all-digital future and the experience of both the existing eBooks 
and existing reader pools that most theological libraries experience. 
Leaving aside the eternal promise that “the technology is just not quite 
there yet,” with its wonderful and shiny and (supposedly) intuitive 
eBooks,7 how can we best match libraries’ current readers with the 
resources that they are provided today? Simply because a library has 
paid for access to a resource, does not mean that the readers using the 
library are able to actually access to it. This is a crucial distinction in 
whatever future there is for libraries and academic eBooks.

LEARNING GAPS

The sources of this mismatch on the readers’ side are at least three 
and likely include a fourth factor. If a user is unable to find or use 
(or unwilling to consider using) an eBook, it is probable that there 
is some form of learning gap between the user’s current knowledge 
and the knowledge that might make the resource useful for them. 
It is helpful to categorize these gaps into different dimensions of 
learning: affective, behavioral, and cognitive. A learning gap in the 
affective dimension may well be motivational (not wanting to put in 
the time to learn to use eBooks or to engage a particular interface) 
or it might be attitudinal (not liking eBooks as a concept, regard-
less of execution). If the suspected learning gap is in the affective 
dimension, its severity and source might be helpful information for 
the library staff to (gently) probe. Knowing the intended use for the 
resource (checking a reference vs. consulting a chapter vs. reading 
the entire book) may prove useful here, as well as knowing what the 



180  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

particular format of the work allows and what it makes difficult.8 For 
some uses, eBooks can bring distinct advantages that readers may 
not have yet considered.

Anecdotally, a lot of information literacy education around eBooks 
(and other topics) seems to assume that the primary learning gap 
users have is behavioral: readers have not yet acquired the skills 
necessary to effectively use eBooks.9 Many library staff are well 
versed in teaching and demonstrating the processes necessary to 
use academic eBooks from their respective collections. A behavioral 
learning gap may be relatively easy to diagnose: a reader knows about 
and wants to access a resource, but cannot complete the process. This 
learning gap can also be the simplest to recognize when it has been 
overcome: the reader uses eBooks effectively. It should be noted that 
an apparent deficit in behavioral learning may actually reflect a gap 
in either affective or cognitive learning. If the reader is not motivated 
(affective learning gap) to use eBooks or if the user is not familiar with 
steps of using these resources (cognitive learning gap), he or she will 
not be able to demonstrate the skill. The source of the deficit cannot 
merely be assumed to be behavioral.

A cognitive learning gap may take a couple of forms. Most obvi-
ously, readers may not know what an eBook is or, more likely, may 
not be fully aware of the eBooks available at their library or the steps 
necessary to use them. One-click downloads may be an expected 
feature of (some) retail eBook vendors, but the process of accessing 
academic eBooks through a library is most likely a multistep process 
which can be quite opaque to many, if not most, readers. Not knowing 
the steps is a cognitive learning gap. Working to simplify the processes 
related to future library eBook use is a noble goal, but attempting to 
be sure that every reader has a basic understanding of the steps of 
the current processes leans into best practices. Multiple vendors, 
interfaces, and formats certainly complicate efforts to overcome this 
cognitive learning gap.10

Examining the timid or non-use of academic eBook users 
through considering these learning domain gaps can help library 
staff understand where a particular reader’s difficulty might be 
overcome and even help make non-users into users. Plus, it has the 
added beneficial condition of being an ABC mnemonic: affective, 
behavioral, cognitive. For more complete consideration of eBook 



Listen and Learn  181

usage (and non-usage) it is helpful to extend the schema into 
hardware and consider adding a “D,” as well: device. Printed books 
are largely platform independent, while eBooks require a device, 
or rather a defined combination of devices and software, in order 
to make them useful. Considering devices in relation to academic 
eBooks also brings in another host of potential affective, behavioral, 
and cognitive learning gaps. One of these gaps may indeed be users’ 
abilities to effectively use and manage their own devices. These gaps, 
coupled with consideration of the multiple uses that readers make 
of eBooks, make a dizzying array of combinations, some of which 
end in the sadness of incompatibility, while others can be relatively 
frictionless and even advantageous over their analog counterparts.

A FORCED EQUIVALENCE 
One of the most effective strategies for partnering new and/or reluc-
tant users with academic eBooks is acknowledging that paper books 
and eBooks (especially as they exist currently) are not directly equiv-
alent. Any equivalence they have is a forced equivalence and the 
more that libraries can foreground this reality with new and/or 
reluctant users, the better. This type of honesty leans into the patron 
experience of academic eBooks and abandons any easy notions 
about accessibility.11 As has been observed, a lot of information 
literacy instruction about eBooks looks to fill behavioral learning 
gaps, while a lot of user resistance to eBooks seems to reflect affec-
tive learning gaps. It is possible, however, that much of the mismatch 
between new and/or reluctant users and academic eBooks rests on 
a cognitive learning gap: the continuing error of assumed equiva-
lence. Academic eBooks are simply not a direct equivalent to the 
same title printed and bound.

Depending on the context, eBooks can be vastly superior. The 
titles found in better interfaces with minimum digital rights manage-
ment interference and linked tables of contents allow for more effi-
cient workflows for some uses than their print counterparts. Full text 
searching along with the ability to directly copy and paste reasonable 
amounts of text can save time and effort which may be applied to 
other tasks. The ability (given a fairly specific set of circumstances) 
to access these books at nearly any distance at any time of the day or 



182  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

night coupled with the reality that (voluminous) additional titles add 
no weight to the access device demonstrate some clear advantages 
that eBooks can have over their paper counterparts.12 

The disadvantages of academic eBooks are also real and relevant to 
all readers. Printed books are generally considered superior for long 
form reading, and the (real or perceived) reading experience is less 
taxing than the known forms of screen reading.13 Paper books (once in 
the possession of the reader) are more reliable with no concerns about 
battery life, compatibility, and connectivity. It is also not insignificant 
that paper library books can be (albeit with certain penalties) kept a 
day or two past their due dates, while their electronic counterparts 
can be much less flexible with unfinished reading, incomplete assign-
ments, and the like. Library staff would do well to understand and be 
ready to admit that eBooks are not a direct equivalent to paper books 
and to highlight the differences (including advantages and disadvan-
tages) to readers. In many cases a reader may be better off with eBook 
version, depending upon their particular need and intended use. 
Again, the context of use and reader are vital in this calculus.

Articulating the different advantages of print and digital books can 
have additional benefits for the reader as well as for the relationship 
between the reader and the library staff. Looking at the relative benefits 
associated with format can help emphasize the kind of information 
need that a given user has. In a research environment, users may make 
assumptions about how much and what kind of access to a work they 
desire which may be somewhat disconnected for their actual need. 
Training researchers to better estimate their needs (and their time) 
can be both an entryway into eBook use and a way to reinforce effective 
research habits.14 Preparing readers who actually do require the entire 
text of a work to manage this forced equivalency in an academic eBook 
environment is truer to the experience of the reluctant eBook user. It 
is best to acknowledge to all readers that eBooks and print books of 
the same title are not directly equivalent; for the new and/or reluctant 
reader, it is obvious, helpful, and honest. The purchase or lease of 
eBook titles and packages needs to be carefully considered, as do 
the contexts, needs, and abilities of the readers for whom they are 
acquired so that every book may indeed have its reader.15



Listen and Learn  183

ENDNOTES

1  I would like to extend sincere apologies to Paul Simon, all the 
good people at Columbia Records, Warner Brothers Music, Ko-
dak, and anyone who attended this presentation for the cringe-
worthiness and derivative nature of this title. I may have a lot 
of excuses, but no really sound reason for choosing it. I regret 
it and appreciate your continued consideration despite it.

2  S. R. Ranganathan, The Five Laws of Library Science (New Delhi: 
Ess Ess Publications, 2006), 315. Ranganathan was, of course, 
speaking to his own context, but this quote seems to encapsu-
late a lot about the experience of a shift to academic eBooks.

3  David W. Lewis, Reimagining the Academic Library (Lanham, 
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 155. Lewis 
acknowledges the difficulty and the long timeline of the 
task and of course this is one part, albeit a central part, of 
a larger argument he is making. The achievability of this 
task is suspect, unless librarians are comfortable with 
significantly diminishing access to considerable portions of 
their collections as many titles (including current titles) are 
not presently available in eBook form at any price. See: Aiping 
Chen-Gafney, “Transitioning to E-Books at a Medium-Sized 
Academic Library: Challenges and Opportunities—A Feasibility 
Study of a Psychology Collection,” in Academic E-Books: 
Publishers, Librarians, and Users, Charleston Insights in Library, 
Archival, and Information Sciences (West Lafayette, Indiana: 
Purdue University Press, 2016), 287–98, https://www.oapen.
org/search?identifier=626970, especially pages 290, 295–6.

4 Richard Manly Adams, Jr., “Which Should We Buy?: 
Reconsidering Best Practices in the Purchase of Print versus 
Electronic Books in Theological Libraries,” American Theological 
Library Association Summary of Proceedings 70 (2016): 283.

5 Joelle Thomas and Galadriel Chilton, “Library E-Book 
Platforms Are Broken: Let’s Fix Them,” in Academic E-Books: 
Publishers, Librarians, and Users, Charleston Insights in Library, 
Archival, and Information Sciences (West Lafayette, Indiana: 
Purdue University Press, 2016), 250, https://www.oapen.org/
search?identifier=626970.

https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=626970
https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=626970
https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=626970
https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=626970


184  ATL A 2019 PROCEEDINGS

6 It is at this point that another apology is in order. I had hoped 
that this presentation would be eminently practical with 
several clear and easy steps to get new and/or reluctant eBook 
users to be on their merry digital way. In truth some fairly 
foundational theoretical realities prevented such a cheerful 
tidiness. 

7 Timothy D. Lincoln, “Reading and E-Reading for Academic 
Work: Patterns and Preferences in Theological Studies and Re-
ligion,” Theological Librarianship 6, no. 2 (2013): 43–44, https://
doi.org/10.31046/tl.v6i2.293.

8 Tao Zhang and Xi Niu, “The User Experience of E-Books in Ac-
ademic Libraries: Perception, Discovery, and Use,” in Academic 
E-Books: Publishers, Librarians, and Users, Charleston Insights in 
Library, Archival, and Information Sciences (West Lafayette, 
Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2016), 210, https://www.
oapen.org/search?identifier=626970.

9 Zhang and Niu, 218.
10 Librarians and users can certainly hope for a degree of 

industry standardization with regard to academic eBooks.
11 Adams, 287, 288.
12 Suzanne M. Ward and Rebecca A. Richardson, “Use and 

Cost Analysis of E-Books: Patron-Driven Acquisitions Plan 
vs. Librarian-Selected Titles,” in Academic E-Books: Publish-
ers, Librarians, and Users, Charleston Insights in Library, Ar-
chival, and Information Sciences (West Lafayette, Indiana: 
Purdue University Press, 2016), 128, https://www.oapen.org/
search?identifier=626970.

13 Zhang and Niu, 211.
14 Michael Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Re-

search (Downers Grove, Illinois, 2016), 68.
15 Ranganathan, 299.

https://doi.org/10.31046/tl.v6i2.293
https://doi.org/10.31046/tl.v6i2.293
https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=626970
https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=626970
https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=626970
https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=626970

