Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study

ACALIB-01613; No. of pages: 12; 4C: The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study Noa Aharony ⁎, Gila Prebor 1 Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 9 February 2015 Accepted 1 May 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Librarians and information professionals Discovery tools TAM Cognitive appraisals Openness to experience

a b s t r a c t Discovery tools are becoming popular all over the world. Yet, there is little information regarding discovery tool implementation and evaluation. The objectives of this study are to explore: (a) librarians' and information professional' current use of discovery tools, (b) to what extent does the TAM explain librarians' and information professionals' intentions to use discovery tools, (c) to what extent do characteristics such as cognitive appraisals explain librarians' and information professionals' intentions to use discovery books, and (d) to what extent do personality dimensions such as openness to experience explain librarians' and information professionals' intentions to use discovery books. The research was conducted in Israel during the first semester of the 2015 academic year and encompassed 145 librarians and information professionals. Researchers used eight questionnaires and two open questions to gather the data. Findings reveal that the implementation of discovery tools in Israel is still in its infancy. Further, findings confirm that the TAM, cognitive appraisals, openness to experience, and importance of discovery tool features, affect respondents' satisfaction with discovery tools. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Discovery tools are Google-style search tools which provide one-box searching for all library content with a centralized consolidated index (Bull, Craft, & Dodds, 2014; Thomsett-Scott & Reese, 2012). Hofmann and Yang (2012) found that the number of institutions in the US and Canada using discovery tools had almost doubled in the last two years. Similarly, Spezi, Creaser, O'Brien, and Conyers (2013) found that 77% of academic libraries in the UK had already installed discovery tools; another 11% was in the process of doing so. According to their findings, the most popular products were Primo from Ex Libris (26%), Summon from Serials Solutions (36%), and EDS from EBSCO (24%). PROBLEM STATEMENT Discovery tools are becoming popular all over the world. In Israel, librarians and information professionals began to use them in 2010. Yet, there is little information regarding discovery tools' implementation and evaluation. This paper focuses on the situation in Israel and investigates how librarians and information professionals use and perceive discovery tools. Research has shown that many users have abandoned the library catalog and turned to search engines, especially Google, to begin information searches (Housewright, Schonfeld, & ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Aharony), [email protected] (G. Prebor). 1 Tel.: +972 3 5318351; fax: +9723 7384027.

Wulfson, 2013; Griffiths & Brophy, 2005; OCLC, 2006). Therefore, one of the questions that arises is which factors may influence librarians and information professionals when considering adopting and implementing discovery tools within their organizations. This question is important because these tools suggest a new, simple, and friendly environment that may influence different users to begin their search within the library platform and not to turn to different search engines. This study seeks to explore whether librarians and information professionals are familiar with technological innovations, whether they are aware of their advantages, and whether they are ready to accept and use them in their organizations. This study is based on several theoretical perspectives. The study uses the technology acceptance model (TAM), a well-known theory for explaining individuals' technology behaviors (Davis, 1989). However, one criticism of the TAM is that it focuses on cognition and does not relate to the influence of emotion on technology adoption (Kulviwat, Bruner, Kumar, Nasco, & Clark, 2007). Hence, this study also includes an emotional variable (the characteristics of threat and challenge) that is part of cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and a personality dimension (openness to experience) that is derived from the Big Five model (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Various studies have been conducted around the world, but most have concentrated on the usability, usage, satisfaction, and access of discovery tools. This study adds another layer by exploring them from a different perspective: it attempts to predict factors that might influence their use by librarians and information professionals. The objectives of this study were to explore: (a) librarians' and information professional' current use of discovery tools, (b) to what

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003 0099-1333/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

2

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

extent does the TAM explain librarians' and information professionals' intentions to use discovery tools, (c) to what extent do characteristics such as cognitive appraisals explain librarians' and information professionals' intentions to use discovery books, and (d) to what extent do personality dimensions such as openness to experience explain librarians' and information professionals' intentions to use discovery books. The research may contribute to the theoretical understanding of variables that influence librarians' and information professionals' intentions to use discovery tools and may lead to further inquiry in this field. The remainder of the article is organized as follows: the next section introduces the theoretical foundations and hypothesis development for the proposed study. Research methods are provided next, followed by findings and discussion. The last section provides theoretical contributions along with a discussion of some limitations of the findings.

LITERATURE REVIEW DISCOVERY TOOLS Vaughan (2012) suggests that discovery tools are a development that has the potential to fulfill the task that libraries have been striving to find. Discovery tools will be able to easily connect researchers with the library's storehouse of information. With these tools, libraries will be able to provide a service capable of searching large amounts of pre-harvested and indexed content quickly and easily. In recent years, much research literature was written on discovery tools and there was a large increase in the number of studies published in 2011 and 2012 (Richardson, 2013). An extensive review of the research literature relating to academic libraries and discovery tools appears in Thomsett-Scott and Reese (2012). They conclude that discovery tools offer many advantages to users such as a friendly interface, one-stop shopping, and limiting by facets. On the other hand, there are also disadvantages such as: too many results, lack of relevancy, missing content, and loss of specificity. In a study conducted after the launch of a discovery tool in the University of Minnesota libraries, it was found that users kept their loyalty to the classic catalog. This is significant because the classic catalog is no longer the default search for these libraries. Results suggest that users have a lower perception of success when using discovery tools, and that it is necessary to improve the quality of the discovery experience (Hessel & Fransen, 2012). Skinner (2012) argues that in terms of user experience, the next-generation catalogs are a marked improvement over the classic catalog. However, the classic catalog has more advanced searching features, especially for known-item searches and the option for browsing authority files and using cross-references. Concerning discovery tool interface, most of the studies found that users prefer discovery tool interface. Ballard and Blaine (2011) suggest that users are 15–20 times more likely to refine their searches when using a discovery platform and that the new catalogs are accomplishing their mission quite well. According to a study which examined a small group of five university students who used Summon, the new homepage design with a single search box was an effective interface for most users. The single search box discovery solution was simple to use, and seemed to deliver satisfactory results on a number of typical library search tasks (Gross & Sheridan, 2011). Further, Denton and Coysh (2011) found that users prefer a discovery tool interface over the classic catalog, as they like the facets and the richness of the search result listings. Referring to satisfaction, Bull et al. (2014), conducted a survey at the University of Birmingham, after twelve months of the library's using the Primo-based Resource Discovery Service, and found that the overall level of satisfaction was quite high with 71.13% of respondents rating it “Good” or “Very Good.” The survey participants included undergraduates, postgraduates, and academic staff. Undergraduates were most happy with the service and academic staff were the least satisfied. The

next section will present variables that might affect librarians' and information professionals' discovery tool usage and perceptions. THE TAM The objective of technology acceptance theory is to understand the causes that influence adoption of new technologies throughout a social system (Barnes & Huff, 2003); assuming people can choose whether or not to adopt an innovation (Gefen & Straub, 1997). The current research focuses on the technology acceptance model (TAM), which was developed by Davis (1989), and is based on the theory of reasoned action (TRA) that has its roots in social psychology. The TRA proposes that behavior can be explained by people's behavioral intentions, attitudes, subjective norms, and beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The TAM (Davis, 1989) presupposes that user acceptance of technology can be explained by two main beliefs: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU). PU is “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989, p. 320). PEOU is “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Through the years, TAM was examined by researchers in various areas. Examples are: perceived system performance (Sun, 2012), perceived user resources (Mathieson, Peacock, & Chin, 2001), prior experiences with similar technologies (Agarwal & Prasad, 1999), age and education (Agarwal & Prasad, 1999), e-learning (Aharony & Bar-Ilan, 2014; Calisir, Altin Gumussoy, Bayraktaroglu, & Karaali, 2014), personal innovativeness (Aharony, 2013), tourism (Pantano & Corvello, 2014), libraries (Aharony, 2013; Booker, Detlor, & Serenko, 2012; Jeong, 2011; Kim, 2010), and e-commerce (Gefen & Straub, 2000; Liébana-Cabanillas, Sánchez-Fernández, & Muñoz-Leiva, 2014). The present study explores the TAM in a new context: discovery tools in the library and information science arena. Based on the literature, H1 is developed: H1. The higher the attitudes PU and PEOU respondents have towards discovery tools, the greater their satisfaction with discovery tools.

THE BIG FIVE The “Big Five” model of personality is one of the most noted measures of personality structure in recent years (Golbeck, Robles, & Turner, 2011). It is considered an inclusive model that consists of five major variables representing personality traits: neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Different researchers have explored the model, finding validity and reliability across age, gender, and cultural lines (McCrae & John, 1992). Each factor in the model is bipolar and contains various aspects. Wang, Jackson, Zhang, and Su (2012) suggest that neuroticism is in contrast to emotional stability and is characterized by anxiety, sadness, irritability, moodiness, hostility, and nervous tension. Extraversion is related to activity, energy, assertiveness, sociability, talkativeness, expressiveness, and positive emotions. Agreeableness is associated with altruism, warmth, trust, modesty, cooperativeness, and tendermindedness. Openness to experience refers to the complexity and depth of the person's mental and experiential life, and is composed of curiosity, creativity, and preference for novelty. Conscientiousness addresses impulse control that contributes to task- and goal-directed behavior, and is associated with discipline, reliability, responsibility, and organization. Various studies have examined the connection between the Big Five model and technology use. Terzis, Moridis, and Economides (2012) explored it in the context of computer based assessment. Others delved into the association between the Big Five model and Internet use (Amichai-Hamburger, 2002; Amichai-Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2003). More studies focused on the relationship between the Big Five model and the use of social networking sites (Aharony, 2014b, 2015; Deng,

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Liu, Li, & Hu, 2013; Kim & Chung, 2014; Selfhout et al., 2010). Witt, Massman, and Jackson (2011) examined the influence of the Big Five on videogame playing, overall computer use, and communication technology use. This study will focus on openness to experience, a characteristic that pertains to creativity, curiosity, intellectualism, and preference for novelty. It is related to cognitive flexibility (McCrae & Costa, 1997), and negatively associated with rigidity, uncertainty, and inflexibility (Hodson & Sorrentino, 1999; Whitboume, 1986). Therefore, researchers chose openness to experience as a trait that might predict librarians' and information professionals' perspectives towards discovery tools. Assuming that openness to experience may predict librarians' and information professionals' attitudes and satisfaction with discovery tools, the underlying assumption of this study is:

3

Positive influence Negative influence

PU PEOU

Attitudes towards DT

Openness

H2. The more open to experience respondents are, the higher their attitudes and satisfaction while using discovery tools. COGNITIVE APPRAISAL: THREAT VERSUS CHALLENGE Cognitive appraisals of threat and challenge focus on “dispositions to appraise ongoing relationships with the environment consistently in one way or another” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 138). Lazarus (1993) suggests that cognitive appraisal refers to the person's evaluation of events for his or her well-being. Threat and challenge appraisals take place when dealing with stressful situations. The person assesses the demands of the environment (primary appraisal), and then makes a decision concerning his or her resources that can be applied to the situation (secondary appraisal). These two appraisals resolve whether people consider the situation a threat or a challenge (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). A challenge appraisal means that the demands of the stressful situation can be overcome, and that the person assumes that there is a potential for gain or benefit (Lazarus, Kanner, & Folkman, 1980; Park & Folkman, 1997). Challenge is usually related to better performance and positive affect (Blascovich, Mendes, & Seery, 2002). The emotions associated with challenge are joy, excitement and happiness (Lazarus, 1991). Further, these persons perceive the possibility for success, social rewards, mastery, learning, and personal growth (Lazarus, 1991). On the other hand, threat takes place when the person understands that resources do not meet situational demands, and it is accompanied by potential danger to the person's self-esteem and self-being (Lazarus, 1991). Threat is typically associated with negative affect and limited focus (Blascovich, 2008). Various studies find that a challenge state helps performance, while a threat state hinders it (Mendes, Blascovich, Hunter, Lickel, & Jost, 2007; Seery, Weisbuch, Hetenyi, & Blascovich, 2010). Several studies that focused on the threat and challenge variable were carried out in the Library and Information Science environment and revealed that the more challenged information professionals are, the higher their Web 2.0 use (Aharony, 2009), and the their behavioral intention is to use e-books (Aharony, 2014b). In addition, other research (Aharony, 2011) indicated that the more librarians were threatened by the concept of knowledge management, the lower their attitudes towards knowledge management were. It should be mentioned that although discovery tools are used in North America and Europe, this phenomenon is relatively new in Israel (where the study was carried out). Thus, the researcher's assumption was that discovery tool usage may cause stress or pose a threat among the study's respondents. Therefore, H3 suggests that: H3. Low scores in respondents' threat appraisal and high scores in respondents' challenge appraisal will be associated with high scores in attitudes and satisfaction. Fig. 1 presents the research model.

Threat

Satisfaction from DT

Challenge

Fig. 1. Research model.

METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION The research was conducted in Israel during the first semester of the 2015 academic year and encompassed two groups of information professionals: librarians and information specialists. The researchers sent a message and a questionnaire to an Israeli library and information science discussion group, and to an Israeli information specialist group in Facebook explaining the study's purpose and asking their members to complete the questionnaire. These two groups encompass about 800 members; 145 responses were received, giving a reply percentage of 18.12%.

DATA ANALYSIS Of the participants, 20 (13.80%) were male and 125 (86.20%) were female. Their average age was 46.04 years. Concerning their role, 111 (76. 55%) worked at an academic library (university or college), 20 (13.79%) at a public library, 12 (8.28%) at a special library and 2 (1.38%) at school libraries. As for their education, 24 (16.55%) had a Bachelor's, 78 (53.79%) had a Master's, 7 (4.83%) had a doctorate, and 36 (24.83%) a librarianship license. Regarding their professional experience 31 (21.38%) worked between 0 and 5 years, 24 (16.55%) worked between 6 and 10 years, 40 (27.59%) worked between 11 and 15 years, 16 (11.03%) worked between 16 and 20 years, and 34 (23.45%) worked more than 20 years.

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

4

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

MEASURES Researchers used eight questionnaires and two open questions to gather the data. The questionnaires focused on personal details, discovery tools, importance of discovery tool features, satisfaction from discovery tools, computer use, cognitive appraisal, attitudes towards discovery tools (TAM), and openness to experience (see Appendix A). The personal details questionnaire had five statements: gender, age, experience, education and place of work. The discovery tool questionnaire had 11 questions that addressed the following subjects: participants' experience, purpose, frequency, and search patterns. The importance of discovery tool feature questionnaire had 13 statements which asked participants to score the most important features of a discovery tool. The questionnaire was based on Yang and Wagner (2010) and Chickering and Yang (2014) and consisted of five statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important; 5 = very important). The value of Cronbach's alpha for the questionnaire was .82. The satisfaction question was based on two questions where participants were asked to report about their satisfaction while using discovery tools. The correlation between the two questions was .65. The authors therefore decided to combine these two questions into one that focuses on users' satisfaction when using discovery tools. The computer use question consisted of 12 statements rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongest disagreement; 5 = strongest agreement). This questionnaire was previously used (Shonfeld & Aharony, 2015). The value for the Cronbach's alpha of the questionnaire was .81. The cognitive appraisal questionnaire focuses on librarians and information professionals' feelings of challenge and threat when confronted with new situations, in our case: discovery tools. It consists of 9 statements rated on a 5-point scale (1 = fully disagree; 5 = strongest agreement). This questionnaire was previously used (Aharony, 2009, 2011; Yekutiel, 1990), and consisted of two factors: threat (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7) and challenge (items, 5, 8, 9). Cronbach's alpha was .89 for the threat factor and .74 for the challenge factor. The discovery tools attitude questionnaire (TAM), based on Liu, Li, and Carlsson (2010), was modified for this study and consisted of 5 statements rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongest disagreement; 5 = strongest agreement). The value of Cronbach's alpha was .83. The openness to experience questionnaire is derived from the Big Five questionnaire (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), and was modified for this study. It has seven statements rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongest disagreement; 5 = strongest agreement). The value of Cronbach's alpha was .82. RESULTS

of the Israel Union Catalog (ULI), 136 (93.79%) answered that they use ULI. Among that number, 102 (75%) answered that they preferred to use the traditional interface of the catalog, while 34 (25%) preferred the new interface of the discovery tools. When participants were asked about their discovery tool frequency use, 75 (51.72%) reported that they used it more than once a day, 21 (14.48%) reported they used it once a week, 15 (10.34%) said once a day, 14 (9.66%) did not use it at all, 13 (8.97%) less than once a month, and 7 (4.83%), once a month. Findings are presented in Fig. 2. Addressing participants' search patterns, out of 127 respondents, 64 (50.39%) reported they used a basic search and 60 (47.24%) noted an advanced one. Three (2.36%) reported they browsed and did not search. Another question related to the first place they used when they wanted to find a book or an article. Sixty-four (43.84%) would consult the classical interface of the catalog, 58 (39.73%) would consult the new interface of the discovery tool, 9 (6.16%) would use specific databases, 7 (4.79%) would use Google, 7 (4.79%) would search Google Scholar and 1 (0.68%) would try Amazon. Findings are presented in Fig. 3. When participants were asked about the first place they used when they wanted to search a certain topic, 46 (31.72%) searched with the interface of the discovery tools, 42 (28.97%) with the traditional catalog interface, 27 (18.62%) with specific databases, 19 (13.10%) with Google, and 11 (7.59%) with Google Scholar. Findings are presented in Fig. 4. Referring to the importance of discovery tool features, the feature that most respondents, 105 (72%), ranked highest was the federated search, followed by faceted navigation (98 (67%)), mobile adaption (81 (55%)), results ranked according to relevance (77 (53%)), a “Did you mean?” option (74 (51%)), auto-completion/stemming (60 (40%)), a simple interface like Google (58 (40%)), RSS (58 (40%)), recommendations to relevant materials (48 (33%)), comprehensive content of the records (46 (32%)), an opportunity to add tags or recommendations (45 (31%)), combinations with social sites (44 (30%)), and adapted to FRBR (44 (30%)). Findings are presented in Fig. 5. Addressing respondents' answers about the advantages and disadvantages of discovery tools, participants mentioned that the discovery tool offers a single comprehensive search, saves time, filters results, and suggests advanced search possibilities. In addition, discovery tools' interface is friendly (“Google style”) and enables a person who is not expert in searching, to find material. Referring to the disadvantages of the discovery tools, respondents mentioned the following: information overload, a lot of noise, lack of precision and relevance, lack of browsing, lack of a thesaurus, and redundant results. INFERENTIAL STATISTICS Pearson correlations were performed in order to examine the relationship between computer use, openness to experience, cognitive

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Regarding discovery tools, 81 participants (55.86%) reported that their library had a discovery tool, 41 (28.28%) said their library does not own a discovery tool, and 23 (15.86%) indicated their library intends to purchase a discovery tool. As of their experience with discovery tools, 94 (64.83%) reported that they know the term discovery tool and they use it, 25 (17.24%) reported that they know the term but did not use it, and 26 (17.93%) reported that they do not know the term and did not use it. The most common discovery tool is Primo, used by 57 participants (52.29%), followed by EDS: Ebsco Discovery Service, used by 20 participants (18.35%), followed by others, used by 15 (13.76%), then by Vufind, used by 13 participants (11.93%). The last is Summon, used by 4 participants (3.67%). Eighty-seven participants (60%) reported that they use discovery tools in other libraries, too. When they were asked about their use

Fig. 2. Discovery tool frequency use.

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

5

Fig. 3. The beginning of a search when participants look for a book or an article. Fig. 5. The importance of discovery tool features.

appraisals, importance of discovery tool features, and the two dependent variables: attitudes towards discovery tools and satisfaction with discovery tools. Results are presented in Table 1. Table 1 presents significant correlations between attitudes towards discovery tools and computer use, openness to experience, challenge, and importance of DT features. Hence, the higher the respondents' attitudes towards discovery tools, the higher their computer use, openness to experience, challenge, and the level of importance of DT features. A significant negative correlation was found between threat and attitudes towards discovery tools. Thus, the higher the respondents' level of threat, the lower their attitudes towards discovery tools. Table 1 also presents significant correlations between openness to experience, challenge, level of importance of DT features, attitudes and satisfaction from discovery tools. Hence, the higher the respondents' openness to experience, level of challenge, importance of DT features, and attitudes, the greater their satisfaction from discovery tools. Significant negative correlation was found between threat and satisfaction. Thus, the higher the respondents' level of threat was, the lower their satisfaction with discovery tools. Regarding the correlations between research variables, significant, positive correlations were found between computer use and openness to experience, and importance of DT features. We may conclude that the higher the respondents' computer use, the higher their openness to experience and their level of importance of DT features. Significant positive correlations were also found between openness to experience

Fig. 4. The beginning of a search when participants look for a specific topic.

and challenge, and importance of DT features. Therefore, the more open to experience respondents are, the higher their level of challenge and their level of importance of DT features. Further, a significant positive correlation was found between challenge and importance of DT features. In other words, the more challenged respondents are, the higher their level of importance of DT features. Another significant positive correlation was found between attitudes and satisfaction, meaning that the higher the respondents' attitudes towards discovery tools, the greater their satisfaction while using discovery tools. Negative significant correlations were found between threat and challenge, and importance of DT features. In other words, the higher the respondents' level of threat, the lower their challenge and the level of importance of DT features. Researchers also conducted two hierarchical regressions using respondents' attitudes towards discovery tools and satisfaction with discovery tools as dependent variables. In the attitude regression, predictors were entered as four steps: (1) computer use; (2) openness to experience as a personality characteristic; (3) importance of DT features; and (4) cognitive appraisal variables: threat and challenge. In the satisfaction regression, predictors were entered as five steps, duplicating the same variable order and adding the fifth step: attitudes towards discovery tools. The first regression explained 54% of attitudes towards discovery tools, and the second 52% of discovery tool satisfaction. Table 2 presents the standardized and unstandardized coefficients of the hierarchical regression of respondents' attitudes towards discovery tools. The first step revealed that the computer use variable contributed significantly by adding 9% to the explained variance of respondents' attitudes. The beta coefficient was positive. Therefore, the higher the respondents' computers use, the higher their attitudes towards discovery tools. The second step introduced the personality characteristic (openness to experience), that contributed significantly by adding 9% to the explained variance of attitudes towards discovery tools. The beta coefficient was positive. In other words, the more open to experience respondents are, the higher their attitudes towards discovery tools. The third step introduced the importance of the DT feature variable, which contributed significantly by adding 8% to the explained variance of attitudes towards discovery tools. The beta coefficient was positive: respondents, whose level of features' importance was higher, appear to have higher attitudes towards discovery tools. The fourth step introduced the cognitive appraisal variables: threat and challenge, which contributed significantly by adding 29% to the explained variance of attitudes towards discovery tools. The beta coefficient of challenge was positive, while that of the threat was negative. Therefore, the more challenged and the less threatened

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

6

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Pearson correlations between computer use, openness to experience, cognitive appraisals, importance of DT features and attitudes towards discovery tools and satisfaction with discovery tools (n = 145). Measures

Computer use

Computer use Openness Threat Challenge Features Importance Attitudes Satisfaction

.23⁎⁎ −.29⁎⁎⁎ .14 .23⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ .10

Openness

Threat

Challenge

Features importance

Attitudes

−.20⁎ .24⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎

−.22⁎⁎ −.39⁎⁎⁎ −.44⁎⁎⁎ −.37⁎⁎⁎

.29⁎⁎⁎ .63⁎⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎⁎

.39⁎⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎⁎

.61⁎⁎⁎

Satisfaction

⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

respondents are, the higher their attitudes towards discovery tools. This step caused a decrease in the β size of computer use, openness to experience, and features' importance. Sobel tests indicated that challenge mediates between openness and attitudes (z = 2.80, p b .01), and between features' importance and attitudes (z = 3.36, p b .001). Hence, the more open to experience respondents are, and the higher their level of features' importance, the more challenged they are to use discovery tools and, as a result, the higher their attitudes towards discovery tools. Furthermore, Sobel tests indicated that threat mediates between openness and attitudes (z = 2.25, p b .05), between features' importance and attitudes (z = 3.28, p b .01), and between computer use and attitudes (z = 2.96, p b .01). We may conclude that the less open to experience respondents are, the lower their level of features' importance, the lower their computer use, the more threatened they are, and the lower their attitudes towards discovery tools. The dependent variable in the second regression is respondents' satisfaction with discovery tools. Table 3 presents the standardized and unstandardized coefficients of the hierarchical regression of respondents' satisfaction. The first step reveals that the computer use variable did not contribute significantly to the explained variance of respondents' satisfaction. The second step introduced the personality characteristic (openness to experience), that contributed significantly by adding 4% to the explained variance of satisfaction. The beta coefficient was positive. In other words, the more open to experience respondents are, the higher their satisfaction from discovery tools. The third step introduced the importance of the DT feature variable, which contributed significantly to the explained variance of satisfaction by adding 25%. The beta coefficient was positive: respondents, whose level of importance of DT features was higher, appeared to be more satisfied with discovery tools. This step caused a decrease in the β size of openness to experience. Sobel tests indicated that the importance of

Table 2 Hierarchical regression coefficients of respondents' attitudes towards discovery tools (n = 145). Step

Predictors

B

1. 2.

Computer use Computer use Openness Computer use Openness Importance Computer use Openness Importance Threat Challenge

.31 .24 .39 .18 .32 .41 .10 .18 .13 −.30 .41

3.

4.

⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

β .29 ⁎⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎ .17⁎ .24⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ .10 .13⁎ .09 −.23⁎⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎⁎

R2

ΔR2

.08 ⁎⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎⁎

.08 ⁎⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎

.25⁎⁎⁎

.08⁎⁎⁎

.54⁎⁎⁎

.29⁎⁎

DT features mediates between openness and satisfaction (z = 2.67, p b .01). Hence, the higher the respondents' level of importance of DT features, and the more open to experience respondents are, the higher their satisfaction with discovery tools. The fourth step introduced the cognitive appraisal variables: threat and challenge, which contributed significantly by adding 14% to the explained variance of satisfaction. The beta coefficient of challenge was positive, while that of the threat was negative. This means that the more challenged and the less threatened respondents are, the higher their satisfaction with discovery tools. The fifth step introduced the attitude variable, which contributed significantly (adding 8%) to the explained variance of satisfaction. This step caused a decrease in the β size of the challenge. Sobel tests indicated that the attitudes mediate between challenge and satisfaction (z = 5.05, p b .001). Hence, the more challenged respondents are, the higher their attitudes and, as a result, the higher their satisfaction from discovery tools.

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS Based on the premises of the TAM, cognitive appraisals, and the Big Five, the present research explored the extent to which openness to experience, threat and challenge, importance of DT features, and computer use, explain librarians' and information professionals' attitudes and satisfaction with discovery tools. By addressing these questions, this article makes a number of theoretical and practical contributions:

Table 3 Hierarchical regression coefficients of respondents' satisfaction (n = 145). Step

Predictors

B

β

R2

ΔR2

1. 2.

Computer use Computer use Openness Computer use Openness Importance Computer use Openness Importance Threat Challenge Computer use Openness Importance Threat Challenge Attitudes

.11 .05 .29 −.04 .15 .76 −.10 .04 .55 −.22 .31 −.14 −.02 .50 −.10 .14 .40

.10 .05 .21⁎ −.04 .11 .52⁎⁎⁎

.01 .05⁎

.01 .04⁎

.30⁎⁎⁎

.25⁎⁎⁎

.44⁎⁎⁎

.14⁎⁎⁎

.52⁎⁎⁎

.08⁎⁎⁎

3.

4.

5.

−.09 .03 .38⁎⁎⁎ −.17⁎ .36⁎⁎⁎ −.13 −.02 .34 −.07 .16⁎ .39⁎⁎⁎

⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

• The findings of this study shed light on a new work technology platform: discovery tools. • This study expands the TAM, cognitive appraisals, and the Big Five perspectives to a new technological platform. • Findings confirm that the TAM, cognitive appraisals, openness to experience, and importance of DT features, affect respondents' satisfaction with discovery tools. • Directors of libraries and information organizations should be familiar with both the TAM and with the issue of individual differences. These factors may help them choose the most appropriate employees, as well as understand and supervise threatened and/or unmotivated workers.

Before dealing with research hypotheses, we would like to focus on the main descriptive findings. First, more than half of the study's participants, 55%, reported that their library had a discovery tool, and 16% reported that their libraries are in the process of implementation of a discovery tool. It seems that the implementation of discovery tools in Israel is developing as in other countries. We can compare this with Hofmann and Yang (2012) who reported that the number of institutions in the US and Canada using discovery tools has almost doubled in two years from 16% to 29%. Further, in 2012 there were more than 6000 libraries in the world which had discovery tools (Bull et al., 2014), and in December 2014 there were already 7881 libraries with discovery tools (Breedind, 2014), and the number is increasing daily. Spezi et al. (2013) found that 77% of academic libraries in the UK had already installed discovery tools; and another 11% were in the process of doing so. In addition, 65% knew the term discovery tools and reported that they used one. Further, about 60% said that they used discovery tools in other libraries too. In other words, the use of discovery tools in Israel is developing at a steady pace. Another finding that may strengthen this feeling is respondents' answers about where they would prefer to begin their search when looking for a book, article, or a certain topic. Results reveal that the percentage of those who prefer using the discovery tools varied from 32% to 44%. However, among those who use the discovery tools, 51% reported that they used it more than once a day. We may conclude that those who recognize discovery tools are familiar with their advantages and use it in their routine work. Addressing the issue of interface, 75% of those who use the Israel Union Catalog prefer to use the traditional interface of the catalog, and not the new interface of the discovery tools. This finding echoes a previous one that suggested that users kept their loyalty to the classic catalog (Hessel & Fransen, 2012). Concerning the importance of discovery tool features, it seems that the most important features are: federated search, faceted navigation, mobile adaption, result ranking according to relevance, and a “did you mean?” option. These features can be perceived as the usefulness factor in the TAM and can then be associated with Kim (2010) who suggested that users will use university library website resources if they find them useful. In addition, they can be linked to Denton and Coysh (2011), suggesting that users particularly liked the facets of discovery tools. The next section focuses on the research hypotheses. H1 was accepted, revealing that the higher the respondents' attitudes towards discovery tools, the higher their satisfaction with discovery tools. In other words, when respondents understand that the discovery tool improves and upgrades their search process, and that the discovery tool is not complicated, but rather simple to use, the more satisfied they are with its functioning. This result can be associated with previous studies that found that high scores in attitudes (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) are related to intentions to use technological innovations (Aharony, 2014a; Serenko, 2008) and, in our case, they are related to satisfaction with a new technological platform. The second hypothesis, H2, was also accepted, revealing that the more open to experience respondents are, the higher their attitudes and satisfaction with discovery tools. It seems that the personality characteristic of openness to experience affects respondents' attitudes and satisfaction,

7

and those librarians and information professionals tend to use and experience relatively new platforms such as discovery tools more than others. This finding is not surprising, as openness to experience is related to creativity, curiosity, and preference for novelty (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Further, previous studies revealed that the more open to experience individuals are, the higher their attitudes towards the assimilation and implementation of novel technologies (Aharony, 2013, 2015; Colquitt, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, & Sheppard, 2002; Sykes, Venkatesh, & Rai, 2011). Therefore, we may conclude that personality characteristics are essential when considering the issue of implementing new technologies. The next hypothesis, H3, considered the cognitive appraisal variable and was also confirmed, revealing that low scores in respondents' threat appraisal and high scores in respondents' challenge appraisal are associated with high scores in attitudes and satisfaction. This finding duplicates previous studies that were carried out in the Library and Information Science arena and focused on the adoption of e-books and Facebook (Aharony, 2014b; Aharony, 2014a). In the present study, it seems that respondents who anticipate failure or negative evaluation when coping with new technological platforms have lower attitudes and satisfaction with discovery tools. On the other hand, those respondents who appraise the adoption of discovery tools as challenging are characterized by having higher attitudes and satisfaction with discovery tools. Therefore, it is likely that respondents will be more familiar with discovery tools, in hopes that such exposure will reduce their level of threat and they will thus be more challenged to try and use them. It is interesting to note that further findings reveal that the higher the respondents' level of computer use, the higher their attitudes towards discovery tools. In other words, the fact that those respondents have higher computer skills enables them to perceive the discovery tools' advantages such as usefulness and ease of use. Summing up, one important fact that we have to remember is that the implementation of discovery tools in Israel is just beginning, as only 55% of participants reported that their library had a discovery tool and 65% said that they know the term discovery tool and they make use of it. Therefore, if library and information organization directors would wish that more individuals use library resources and not turn to search engines at the beginning of their searches, they may use the study's conclusions in order to increase library visibility. First, they should be aware of the level of their employees' computer competence, a fact that affects individuals' attitudes towards discovery tools. They should suggest to their employees to take courses and improve their computer competence, understanding that such a step would reduce librarians' and information professionals' level of threat of using new technology. Secondly, they should be aware of the importance of individual differences such as openness to experience and threat and challenge, factors that have a great influence on respondents' decision whether to adapt a new technological platform or not. The study's findings indicate that if participants are challenged on the new technological platform, they would implement it and be satisfied with it, and vice versa: if they are threatened on a new technological platform, they will neither use it nor be satisfied with it. Hence, library and information organization directors should make an effort and expose their employees to the advantages of discovery tools, hoping they would adapt it and thereby enhance individuals' use of the library's treasures. This study has several limitations. The first is that a future study should include a greater number of participants. Further, researchers suggest that if an international perspective towards discovery tools is to be achieved, the study should be conducted in other countries as well. Lastly, a future study may also use qualitative methods such as interviews to supplement the quantitative analysis and thereby enrich the findings by adding other dimensions to the inquiry process.

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

8

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE PERSONAL DETAILS 1. Male/Female 2. Age: 3. Number of years of professional experience in the field of LIS a. 0–5 b. 6–10 c. 11–15 d. 16–20 e. More then 20 4. Education: a. Bachelor's degree in Library and Information Science b. Master's degree in Library and Information Science c. Ph.D. in Library and Information Science d. Librarianship certificate e. Other 5. Workplace: a. University library b. College Library c. Special Library d. School Library e. Public Library f. Other DISCOVERY TOOLS QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Has your library implemented a discovery tool? a. Yes b. No c. Not yet, but we are in the process of doing so. 2. Experience with discovery tools a. I did not know the concept of discovery tools and have never used them. b. I know the concept of discovery tools, but have not so far used them. c. I know the concept of discovery tools and I use them. 3. Which discovery tool does your library own? a. Vufind b. EDS — Ebsco Discovery Service c. Summon d. Primo e. Other 4. I use discovery tools while searching other library catalogs. a. Yes b. No 5. If so, in which libraries? a. Libraries in Israel b. Libraries outside of Israel 6. I use the Israel Union Catalog (ULI). a. Yes b. No 7. When I use the Israel Union Catalog (ULI) I prefer to use the: a. the classic interface b. the new discovery tool interface Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

9

8. How often do you use discovery tools? a. More than once a day b. Once a day c. Once a week d. Once a month e. Less than once a month f. Never 9. What do you use discovery tools for? a. To find books b. To find articles c. To find theses and Ph.D. dissertations d. To find information on a specific topic e. To find information from databases f. Other 10. Where do you usually begin searching when you look for a book or article? a. Library catalog — the classic interface b. Library catalog — the discovery tool interface c. Specific Databases d. Google e. Google Scholar f. Amazon g. Other 11. Where do you usually begin searching when you look for a specific topic? a. Library catalog — the classic interface b. Library catalog — the discovery tool interface c. Specific databases d. Google e. Google Scholar f. Amazon g. Other

THE IMPORTANCE OF DISCOVERY TOOL FEATURES Below are features concerning discovery tools. Please place an X in the column that describes the importance of the feature. (Score 1 indicates a lack of importance, 5 indicates a great deal of importance.) Features

1. Unimportant

2. Little importance

3. Average importance

4. Very important

5. A great deal of importance

1. Federated search — one-stop search for all library resources (books, articles, videos, pictures, digital materials, databases and more) 2. State-of-the-art web interface (a modern design similar to E-commerce sites, such as Google, Netflix, and Amazon) 3. Enriched content (including book cover images, reviews, ratings, and tag clouds) 4. Faceted navigation (allows users to narrow down the search results by categories, also called facets; the commonly used facets include locations, publication dates, authors, formats, and more) 5. Ranking results by relevance 6. Did you mean…? spell-checking 7. Recommendations/related materials 8. User contribution (includes descriptions, summaries, reviews, criticism, comments, rating and ranking, and tagging) 9. RSS feeds 10. Integration with social networking sites 11. Auto-completion/stemming 12. Mobile compatibility 13. Display Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Retrieval (FRBR) relationships

1. In my opinion: discovery tools are: a. Very good b. Good c. Average d. Bad e. Very bad Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

10

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

2. With respect to the classic catalog of the library, discovery tools are: a. Much better b. Better c. About the same d. Worse e. Much worse Open questions: 1. What do you think are the benefits of discovery tools? 2. What do you think are the disadvantages of discovery tools? ICT QUESTIONNAIRE Please read the following statements and mark with X the column which describes your accordance with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). I use these platforms for my professional and personal needs

1

2

3

4

5

1. Word processing 2. Presentations (such as Power Point) 3. Electronic spreadsheet 4. Collaborative platforms such as Google Docs 5. Social networks sites 6. Smart phones or tablets applications 7. Wikis 8. Blogs 9. Communication systems based on the Internet (such as Skype) 10. Media sites (such as YouTube) 11. Simulations, software, electronic games 12. Learning management system (such as Moodle)

Below are statements concerning your attitudes towards new situations (using discover books). Please mark with X the column which describes your accordance with the following statements (1 = not at all; 6 = at a very high level). When you think of using e-books

1. Not at all

2. Slightly

3. Average level

4. More than average

5. At a very high level

1. The situation stresses me 2. The situation seems difficult to me 3. The situation threatens me 4. The situation will harm me 5. You think you can benefit from this situation 6. The situation makes me angry 7. This situation causes anxiety 8. This situation causes certainty 9. The situation enables me to show my capacity

Below are statements concerning your attitudes towards the assimilation of discovery tools in your organization. Please mark with X the column which describes your accordance with the following statements (1 = not at all; 5 = at a very high level). Statement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Not at all

2. Slightly

3. Average level

4. More than average

5. At a very high level

It would be easy for me to become an expert and control discovery tools Eventually using discovery tools is beneficial I think it is easy to learn how to use discovery books I think using discovery tools is not complex Using discovery tools will contribute to my personal success in the future

Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement (1 = not at all; 5 = at a very high level). I see myself as someone who

1. Not at all

2. Slightly

3. Average

4. More than average

5. At a very high level

1. Is original, comes up with new ideas 2. Is curious about many different things 3. Is ingenious, a deep thinker 4. Has an active imagination 5. Is inventive 6. Values artistic, aesthetic experience 7. Prefers routine work 8. Often enjoys thinking about abstract ideas

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

References Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391. Aharony, N. (2009). Web 2.0 use by librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 31(1), 29–37. Aharony, N. (2011). Librarians' attitudes towards knowledge management. College & Research Libraries, 72(2), 111–128. Aharony, N. (2013). Librarians' attitudes towards mobile services. ASLIB Proceedings, 65(4), 358–375. Aharony, N. (2014a). Factors affecting adoption of Facebook: The Israeli LIS community perspective. College & Research Libraries, 75, 878–894. Aharony, N. (2014b). Factors affecting the adoption of e-books by information professionals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0961000614532120 (Advance online publication). Aharony, N. (2015). Factors affecting the adoption of cloud computing by information professionals. Electronic Library, 33(2), 308–323. Aharony, N., & Bar-Ilan, Y. (2014, February). Students' perceptions on MOOCs: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 12th Annual MEITAL National Conference, “New Technologies and their Evaluation in Online Teaching and Learning”, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2002). Internet and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00034-6. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 71–80. Ballard, T., & Blaine, A. (2011). User search-limiting behavior in online catalogs. New Library World, 112(5/6), 261–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03074801111136293. Barnes, S. J., & Huff, S. L. (2003). Rising sun: iMode and the wireless Internet. Communications of the ACM, 46(11), 79–84. Blascovich, J. (2008). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliott (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 431–445). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., & Seery, M. (2002). Intergroup threat: A multi-method approach. In D. M. Mackie, & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 89–109). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 1–51. Booker, L., Detlor, B., & Serenko, A. (2012). Factors affecting the adoption of online library resources by business students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2503–2520. Breedind, M. (2014). Investigations into library web scale discovery services. Library Technology Guides: Discovery Products. Retrieved from http://www.librarytechnology. org/discovery.pl. Bull, S., Craft, E., & Dodds, A. (2014). Evaluation of a resource discovery service: FindIt@ Bham. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(2), 137–166. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/13614533.2014.897238. Calisir, F., Altin Gumussoy, C., Bayraktaroglu, A. E., & Karaali, D. (2014). Predicting the intention to use a web-based learning system: Perceived content quality, anxiety, perceived system quality, image, and the Technology Acceptance Model. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24(5), 515–531. Chickering, F. W., & Yang, S. Q. (2014). Evaluation and comparison of discovery tools: An update. Information Technology and Libraries, 33(2), 5–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/ ital.v33i2.3471. Colquitt, J., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., LePine, J., & Sheppard, L. (2002). Computer-assisted communication and team decision-making performance: The moderating effect of openness to experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 402–410. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory: NEO PI-R and NEO Five-Factor inventory. NEO-FFI professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339. Deng, S., Liu, Y., Li, H., & Hu, F. (2013). How does personality matter? An investigation of the impact of extraversion on individuals' SNS use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16(8), 575–581. Denton, W., & Coysh, S. J. (2011). Usability testing of VuFind at an academic library. Library Hi Tech, 29(2), 301–319. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in perception and adoption of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 21(4), 389–400. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2000). The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in is adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(1) (article 8). Golbeck, J., Robles, C., & Turner, K. (2011, May). Predicting personality with social media. CHI '11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 253–262). New York, NY: ACM. Griffiths, J. R., & Brophy, P. (2005). Student searching behavior and the Web: Use of academic resources and Google survey of existing search engine use research. Library Trends, 53(4), 539–554. Gross, J., & Sheridan, L. (2011). Web scale discovery: The user experience. New Library World, 112(5/6), 236–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 03074801111136275. Hessel, H., & Fransen, J. (2012). Resource discovery: Comparative results on two catalog interfaces. Information Technology and Libraries, 31(2), 21–44. Hodson, G., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1999). Uncertainty orientation and the Big Five personality structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2), 253–261. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1006/jrpe.1999.2244.

11

Hofmann, M. a, & Yang, S. Q. (2012). “Discovering” what's changed: A revisit of the OPACs of 260 academic libraries. Library Hi Tech, 30(2), 253–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 07378831211239942. Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C., & Wulfson, K. (2013). Ithaka S + R: US faculty survey 2012. (Retrieved from http://sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/reports/Ithaka_SR_US_ Faculty_Survey_2012_FINAL.pdf). Kim, H., & Chung, Y. W. (2014). The use of social networking services and their relationship with the Big Five Personality Model and job satisfaction in Korea. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 17(10), 658–663. Jeong, H. (2011). An investigation of user perceptions and behavioral intentions towards the e-Library. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 35, 45–60. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five inventory — Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research. Kim, Y. (2010). The adoption of university library web site resources: A multi-group analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(5), 978–993. Kulviwat, S., Bruner, G. C., Kumar, A., Nasco, S. A., & Clark, T. (2007). Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychology & Marketing, 24(12), 1059–1084. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234–247. Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A. D., & Folkman, S. (1980). Emotions: A cognitive–phenomenological analysis. In R. Plutchik, & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experience (pp. 189–217). New York, NY: Faculty Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer. Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2014). Antecedents of the adoption of the new mobile payment systems: The moderating effect of age. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 464–478. Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of M-learning: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1211–1219. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model: The influence of perceived user resources. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86–112. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). London, England, UK: Academic Press. McCrae, R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Retrieved from http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/Courses/PSYC5112/Readings/ psnBig5_Mccrae03.pdf McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience and its social consequences. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257–273). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Jost, J. T. (2007). Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancyviolating partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 698–716. OCLC (2006). College students' perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC (Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/ content/dam/oclc/reports/pdfs/studentperceptions.pdf). Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). The role of meaning in the context of stress and coping. General Review of Psychology, 2, 115–144. Pantano, E., & Corvello, V. (2014). Tourists' acceptance of advanced technology-based innovations for promoting arts and culture. International Journal of Technology Management, 64(1), 3–16. Richardson, H. A. (2013). Revelations from the literature: How web-scale discovery has already changed us. Computers in Libraries, 33(4), 12–17. Seery, M. D., Weisbuch, M., Hetenyi, M. A., & Blascovich, J. (2010). Cardiovascular measures independently predict performance in a university course. Psychophysiology, 47, 535–539. Selfhout, S., Burk, W., Branje, S., Denissen, J., vanAken, M., & Meeus, M. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 509–538. Serenko, A. (2008). A model of user adoption of interface agents for e-mail notification. Interacting with Computers, 20(4–5), 461–472. Shonfeld, M., & Aharony, N. (2015, February). ICT use: Educational technology and Library and Information Science students' perspectives — An exploratory study. Proceedings of the Chaise Conference, the Open University, Ra'anana, Israel. Skinner, D. G. (2012). A comparison of searching functionality of a VuFind catalogue implementation and the traditional catalogue. Library Trends, 61(1), 208–217. http://dx. doi.org/10.1353/lib.2012.0031. Sykes, T., Venkatesh, V., & Rai, A. (2011). Explaining physicians' use of EMR systems and performance in the shakedown phase. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(2), 125–130. Spezi, V., Creaser, C., O'Brien, A., & Conyers, A. (2013). Impact of library discovery technologies: A report for UKSG. (Retrieved from http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg. org/files/UKSG_final_report_16_12_13_by_LISU.pdf). Sun, J. (2012). Why different people prefer different systems for different tasks: An activity perspective on technology adoption in a dynamic user environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 48–63. Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., & Economides, A. A. (2012). How student's personality traits affect Computer Based Assessment acceptance: Integrating BFI with CBAAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1985–1996. Thomsett-Scott, B., & Reese, P. E. (2012). Academic libraries and discovery tools: A survey of the literature. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 19(2–4), 123–143. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10691316.2012.697009. Vaughan, J. (2012). Investigations into library web scale discovery services. Information Technology and Libraries, 31(1), 32–82.

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003

12

N. Aharony, G. Prebor / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Wang, J., Jackson, L., Zhang, D., & Su, Z. (2012). The relationships among the Big Five Personality factors, self-esteem, narcissism, and sensation seeking to Chinese University students' uses of social networking sites (SNSs). Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2313–2319. Whitboume, S. K. (1986). Openness to experience, identity flexibility, and life change in adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 163–168. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.163. Witt, E., Massman, A., & Jackson, L. (2011). Trends in youth's videogame playing, overall computer use, and communication technology use: The impact of self-

esteem and the Big Five personality factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 763–769. Yang, S. Q., & Wagner, K. (2010). Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: How close are we towards next generation catalog? Library Hi Tech, 28(4), 690–709. http://dx. doi.org/10.1108/07378831011096312. Yekutiel, S. (1990). Fathers' and mothers' confrontation with the transition of parenthood. Unpublished master's thesis. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University.

Please cite this article as: Aharony, N., & Prebor, G., Librarians' and Information Professionals' Perspectives Towards Discovery Tools — An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.003