Bibliographic Management Tool Adoption and Use A Qualitative Research Study Using the UTAUT Model

Hannah Gascho Rempel, Margaret Mellinger

Abstract


This study explores how researchers choose a bibliographic management tool and what makes them continue using this tool. This exploratory, observational study combined a naturalistic work-practice method, interviews, and journal reflections to collect qualitative research data from researchers actively using a bibliographic management tool. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model was used as a guiding framework to help provide a better understanding of these researchers' bibliographic management adoption and use behaviors. Findings indicate participants adopt tools because of an expectation of enhanced research productivity, but participants persist in using the tools because of ease-of-use experiences. Librarians were found to have opportunities to influence tool adoption decisions but may have somewhat less influence over researchers' decisions to continue using bibliographic management tools.


Full Text:

HTML PDF

References


Jon Ritterbush, “Supporting Library Research with LibX and Zotero: Two Open Source Firefox Extensions,” Journal of Web Librarianship 1, no. 3 (July 2007): 111–22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J502v1n03-08.

Holt Zaugg et al., “Mendeley: Creating Communities of Scholarly Inquiry through Research Collaboration,” TechTrends 55, no. 1 (January 2011): 32–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0467-y.

Ron Gilmour and Laura Cobus-Kuo, “Reference Management Software: A Comparative Analysis of Four Products,” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 66, no. Summer (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.5062/F4Z60KZF.

Yingting Zhang, “Comparison of Select Reference Management Tools,” Medical Reference Services Quarterly 31, no. 1 (March 2012): 45–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2012.641841.

Michael Steeleworthy and Pauline Theresa Dewan, “Web-Based Citation Management Systems: Which One Is Best?,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 8, no. 1 (2013), http://gir.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/2220.

Laura Pope Robbins, “Mendeley or Zotero: Which Should the Mobile Researcher Use?,” The Charleston Advisor 14, no. 2 (October 2012): 5–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.5260/chara.14.2.5.

M. Kathleen Kern and Merinda Kaye Hensley, “Citation Management Software: Features and Futures,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 50, no. 3 (Spring 2011): 204–8.

Khue Duong, “Rolling Out Zotero Across Campus as a Part of a Science Librarian’s Outreach Efforts,” Science & Technology Libraries 29, no. 4 (October 2010): 315–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2010.523309.

Megan Fitzgibbons and Deborah Meert, “Are Bibliographic Management Software Search Interfaces Reliable? A Comparison between Search Results Obtained Using Database Interfaces and the End Note Online Search Function,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 36, no. 2 (March 2010): 144–50.

John Chenault, “From Citation Management to Knowledge Management: Developing and Implementing Innovative Endnote Training and Support Services on the Health Sciences Campus,” Kentucky Libraries 75, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 6–11.

Dawn Childress, “Citation Tools in Academic Libraries,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 51, no. 2 (December 2011): 143–152, http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.51n2.143.

H. Stephen McMinn, “Library Support of Bibliographic Management Tools: A Review,” Reference Services Review 39, no. 2 (2011): 278–302.

Jamie Salem and Paul Fehrmann, “Bibliographic Management Software: A Focus Group Study of the Preferences and Practices of Undergraduate Students,” Public Services Quarterly 9, no. 2 (2013): 110–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2013.785878.

Jenny Emanuel, “Users and Citation Management Tools: Use and Support,” Reference Services Review 41, no. 4 (November 2013): 639–59.

University of Minnesota Libraries, University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy: A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Academic Support: Final Report (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006), http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/5540.

Marni R. Harrington, “Information Literacy and Research-Intensive Graduate Students: Enhancing the Role of Research Librarians,” Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 28, no. 4 (December 2009): 179–201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639260903272778.

Kirsty Williamson et al., “Research Students in the Electronic Age: Impacts of Changing Information Behavior on Information Literacy Needs,” Communications in Information Literacy 1, no. 2 (August 2008): 47–63, http://dx.doi.org/10.7548/cil.v1i2.21.

Fred D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly 13, no. 3 (September 1989): 319–340, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249008.

Viswanath Venkatesh et al., “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” MIS Quarterly 27, no. 3 (September 2003): 425–78.

Anders Avdic and Anders Eklund, “Searching Reference Databases: What Students Experience and What Teachers Believe That Students Experience,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 42, no. 4 (December 2010): 224–35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000610380119.

Sarah-Jane Saravani and Gaby Haddow, “The Mobile Library and Staff Preparedness: Exploring Staff Competencies Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 42, no. 3 (September 2011): 179–90.

Leila Khalili and Diljit Singh, “Factors Influencing Acceptance of Open Access Publishing among Medical Researchers in Iran,” Libri 62, no. 4 (December 2012): 336–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/libri-2012-0026.

Viswanath Venkatesh, “Technology Acceptance Models,” accessed January 17, 2014, www.vvenkatesh.com/it/organizations/Theoretical_Models.asp#Con=structdefs.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.54n4.43

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


© 2017 RUSA