Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice




 





 


 


Evidence Summary


 


Many Indian PhD Students Lack Motivation and Skills
to Use Academic Journal Articles, Their Libraries Lack Resources and Standards


 


A Review of:


Saxena, S. (2018). Factors impacting the usage of
academic journal articles by PhD students in India. Information Discovery
and Delivery, 46(4), 204-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-09-2017-0069


  


Reviewed by:


Michelle
DuBroy


Discipline
Librarian (Researcher Services)


Library


Griffith
University


Gold
Coast, Queensland, Australia


Email:
m.dubroy@griffith.edu.au


 


Received: 9 Feb. 2020                                                                Accepted:  30 Mar. 2020


 


 


 2020 DuBroy. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.




 


 


DOI: 10.18438/eblip29731


 





 


Abstract


 


Objective – To investigate
the factors influencing the use of academic journals by PhD students in India.


 


Design – Grounded
analysis.


 


Setting – Five
universities in India.


 


Subjects – 147 PhD
students.


 


Methods – Subjects were
selected using a mix of convenience and purposeful sampling. Email was then
used to send the questions, receive the responses, and seek clarification as
required. This process was conducted between September 2016 and January 2017.


 


Main results – Completed
responses were received from 134 students, resulting in a response rate of
approximately 91%. The researcher identified five factors influencing academic
journal usage: institutional, task complexity, relevance and
application, information quality, and technical. There was
“marked” dissatisfaction with library facilities and access to academic
resources, with one respondent stating that their library “does not subscribe
to a single electronic journal” (p. 209). Other identified issues include
students’ insufficient awareness of what is available, limited motivation to
“undertake serious research work” (p. 210) and inadequate skill levels to use
available resources effectively. 


 


Conclusion – Universities
should provide the required resources (both human and infrastructure) to ensure
their academic libraries meet quality standards. To do so requires appropriate
funding. Additionally, researchers should be encouraged to use their library’s
resources in the context of improving their scholarly contribution.


 


Commentary


 


Studies about the information seeking habits of
doctoral students have been well synthesized (Catalano, 2013; Spezi, 2016). However, most of the included studies
originate in the West. This study, therefore, provides a needed view of the
topic from a developing country.


 


The study was reviewed for rigour (Chiovitti
& Piran, 2003) and credibility (Oktay, 2012). Both strengths and weaknesses were found.


 


The researcher’s useful table of related literature
identifies a sound rationale for the study. The researcher also articulates the
context and demographic details of her participants.


 


Regrettably, the paper’s methods section is inadequate
for demonstrating adherence to grounded theory methods. The credibility of the
research is, therefore, unclear (Oktay, 2012).
Remarkably, the researcher has not disclosed how, or if, she coded the data.
Further, readers do not know how the researcher arrived at her conclusions nor
if she had considered other hypotheses.


 


Participants could "contribute any miscellaneous
information” (p. 205) they wished, and clarification was sought from them as
required. However, it does not appear that participants guided the research
process in any way. Moreover, there is no evidence the researcher used
participant feedback to confirm or revise the emerging theory. The use of focus
groups or live interviews, rather than an open-ended survey, could have
provided a richer body of data to work with.


 


The researcher appears to draw conclusions from the
data and connects her findings to her participants’ own words. However, she
does not state how well these quotations typify the data nor if this
information “earned its way into the theory... [through] repeated presence” (Chiovitti & Piran, 2003, p.
429).


 


Despite these limitations, the proposed practitioner
implications are sensible. Academic librarians in India will no doubt welcome
calls for greater funding and the pursuit of quality standards. The
transferability of the findings, however, could have been further demonstrated
by linking the conclusions to relevant literature.


 


The study will be of interest to academic librarians
who work with PhD students educated in developing nations. The apparent lack of
library resources available to students studying in these countries is notable.
Ways to support research students transferring from these countries to
better-resourced institutions should be considered.


 


References


 


Catalano, A. (2013). Patterns of graduate students'
information seeking behavior: A meta‐synthesis of the
literature. Journal of Documentation, 69(2), 243-274. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411311300066


 


Chiovitti, R. F., & Piran, N. (2003). Rigour and
grounded theory research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44(4),
427-435. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0309-2402.2003.02822.x


 


Oktay, J. S.
(2012). Evaluating quality. In J. S. Oktay (Ed.), Grounded
theory. (pp. 103-124).
Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753697.003.0005


 


Spezi, V.
(2016). Is information-seeking behavior of doctoral
students changing?: A review of the literature
(2010-2015). New Review of Academic Librarianship, 22(1), 78-106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2015.1127831