BEST PRACTICE THAT INFLUENCE THE USE OF RFID SELF-HELP

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter an overview of the research methodology was given. A predominantly quantitative research approach was followed and the principle of methodological triangulation was applied. The data collection methods that were triangulated during the current study were questionnaires, interviews and existing statistical documentation analysis. The research design comprised a case study with a specific focus on Unisa Library Services and the sampling methods used included stratified systematic sampling supplemented with quota sampling. Quantitative and qualitative data analyses were discussed.
Chapter 4 focuses on an analysis of the data obtained after applying the data collection tools. The analysis was guided by the objectives and research questions identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.
The literature study was used to firstly identify factors, best practice and the advantages and disadvantages that influence the RFID self-help circulation services in academic libraries. These factors, best practice and advantages and disadvantages were then applied to Unisa Library Services by analysing the data that was obtained with the above-mentioned data collection tools. During data analysis, additional factors, best practice and advantages and disadvantages specific to Unisa Library Services were also identified.
During data analysis SPSS 24 was used to calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient between two variables. The null hypothesis was also tested. This means that the correlation between two variables in the sample is hypothetically equal to zero or does not exist in the population (Kirkpatrick & Feeney 2013:76–79). Applicable variables analysed in Section 4.9 to Section 4.12 were further analysed by using the Pearson correlation method.
The variables between which the Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated in the above table were change management regarding self-issue library users and self-issue usage. The Sig. or significance level of the two chosen variables in each case during data analysis is 0.000. N = the sample. Depending on which of the rest of the variables in this chapter were chosen either satisfaction or usage was used as the second variable to calculate the correlation.
The Pearson correlation method of analysis indicates if the correlation between two variables in the sample will also exist in the population (Alreck & Settle 2004:305-306). In the above example the correlation between the two variables exists in the sample and the population.
With a correlation significance level of 0.000 between the two variables, this number is rounded off and is less than 0.0005 or 0.05%. This means that the chance of the population correlation being zero is less than 0.05%. With a Sig. value of 0.000 the risk of error is one in a 1 000. It must also be noted that if the correlation is significant at a 0.01 level, it will also be significant at the 0.05 level (Antonius 2013:218-219).
A significant correlation between two variables means that a change in one variable will lead to a change in the other variable. So, covariance or how much two variables go together is indicated (Babbie 2010:95; David & Sutton 2011:519-520; Neuman 2011:404).

RESPONDENTS TO THE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS

Questionnaires and interviews were used to obtain information from the sample group. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.6 problems were encountered with obtaining a representative sample. The respondents were classified into users of the Unisa Library Services and staff members of Unisa Library Services. The former was divided into three groups.
Responses from both the library staff and the users were obtained by using the relevant questionnaire for each library section and library user category as follows:
Library users identified during stratified systematic sampling were targeted by sending links to the online questionnaire in e-mails. Interviews were also conducted with the library users identified as part of the quota sampling. The same self-administered online questionnaire for library users was also used during the interviews. The data obtained related to the library users’ experience with the RFID self-help circulation services and was mostly quantitative in nature with some qualitative elements.
Interviews were conducted with circulation librarians at the Muckleneuk branch library. Circulation librarians who assisted library users on a daily basis using RFID self-help circulation services were targeted. The data collected in these interviews was quantitative in nature with some qualitative elements.
An online questionnaire was send to circulation librarians at the remote Unisa Library Services branches. Circulation librarians who assisted library users daily using RFID self-help circulation services were targeted. E-mails with links to the relevant online questionnaire were sent to the identified branch librarians. The data obtained by using these self-administered online questionnaires was quantitative in nature with some qualitative elements.
Acquisitions tagging staff based at the Muckleneuk library were interviewed and data relating to the tagging of library material items was captured. The questions in these interviews were quantitative in nature with some qualitative questions.
A round of interviews was also conducted with delivery staff based at the Muckleneuk branch library. During the interviews data relating to the use of RFID staff workstations was captured. The questions in these interviews were quantitative in nature with some qualitative elements.
Interviews were also conducted with shelving staff based at the Muckleneuk branch library. During the interviews, specific questions were asked regarding the number of library items found without RFID tags, items found where the information on the tags could not be read by the RFID equipment, and items where the tags had been removed or damaged. Questions were also posed regarding the use of the RFID sorter machine and staff workstation. The data collected during these interviews was quantitative in nature with some qualitative elements.
Interviews were further conducted with the systems librarians in the library technology services section (LTS). The data captured related to the systems librarians’ experience during maintenance and support of the RFID equipment and the integration of the equipment with the LMS. The data obtained during these interviews was mostly qualitative with some quantitative elements.
Inventory control librarians based at the Muckleneuk branch library also were targeted for interviews. Questions were posed regarding the use of the RFID technology for inventory control. The data obtained during these interviews was qualitative in nature with some quantitative elements.
Senior library management was also interviewed. The data obtained was related to management issues regarding the RFID self-help circulation services. The data collected during these interviews was mostly qualitative in nature with some quantitative elements.
The questionnaires that were used are attached in Annexure 1. Individual questionnaires for the different library sections had to be drawn up, as each section uses the RFID technology in a unique way. Combining questionnaires would have led to confusion in answering the questions.

READ  CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION VERSUS THE MANUAL CIRCULATION DESK

Implementation of the RFID self-help circulation services started mid-2010 and was finalised by the beginning of 2011. Circulation statistics have been kept since January 2011 to track the usage of the manual circulation desk versus the RFID self-help circulation services.
To establish whether implementation of the RFID self-help circulation services led to reduced use of the manual circulation desk at the Unisa Library Services a comparison was made. Accordingly, statistics for the period January to December 2011 are shown in Figure 4.3:
From the above two figures, it is clear that during the first year (2011) of the RFID self-help circulation services implementation at Unisa Library Services, use of the manual circulation desk exceeded that of the RFID self-help circulation services: 52% as opposed to 48%. By 2015, however, the use of the RFID self-help circulation services compared to the use of the manual circulation desk had reversed, with 52% of RFID self-issue and self-return circulation by users visiting Unisa libraries versus 48% of manual issue and return using the circulation desk. However, according to the three articles (see Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3) that describe the use of RFID self-help circulation services, self-help circulation should raise to approximately 75% of total circulation after six months to two years of implementation. This was not the case after more than five years of RFID self-help circulation services being in use at Unisa Library Services. Therefore, this is an indicator of the presence of factors, best practice and advantages and disadvantages having an influence on the RFID self-help circulation services.

USE OF THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION SERVICES BY LIBRARY USERS

The use and non-use of the RFID self-help circulation services by the different categories of library user respondents were as follows:
Student respondents who did not use the self-issue services exceeded those that did – 264 (54.32%) versus 222 (45.68%). In addition, 297 (61.11%) did not use the self-return services as opposed to 189 (38.89%) students who did.
60 (61.86%) staff users used the self-issue services versus 37 (38.14%) who did not, while 57 (58.76%) staff users used the self-return services versus 40 (41.24%) who did not.
Use of the self-issue services by staff who were also Unisa students were as follows: 46 (63.89%) used the self-issue services while 26 (36.11%) did not.

 FREQUENCY OF USE OF THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION SERVICES

Frequency of use of the RFID self-help circulation services was also studied because it is an indicator of the presence of factors, best practice and advantages and disadvantages that have an influence on these services. The more or less often the services were used indicates that certain factors, best practice and advantages and disadvantages were present that influenced how often the services were used.
The Pearson correlation was calculated between the variables frequency of use and satisfaction with use of the self-help circulation services for library users. The significance of the correlation was calculated and found to be at the 0.01 level between Table 4.2 to 4.3 below – frequency of use and Table 4.4 to Table 4.6 – satisfaction with use.
The highest number of student respondents were found in the frequency category “Once a month” – 43 (19.37%) and the lowest with frequencies of “Once” – one (0.45%) respondent. One (0.45%) student respondent had a frequency of use of twice in three years. 19 (31.67%) was the highest number of staff whose frequency of use was “Once every quarter” and one (1.67%) was the lowest number of staff whose frequency of use was “Once a week”. The frequency of use with the highest number of staff who were also Unisa students was in the category “Once every quarter” with 16 respondents (34.78%), and the lowest number of respondents fell into the category “More than once a week” with one respondent (2.17%). One respondent in this user category did not answer the question.

DECLARATION
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
1.6 JUSTIFICATION AND IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
1.7 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
1.8 LITERATURE STUDY
1.9 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.10 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
1.11 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE STUDY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 BEST PRACTICE THAT INFLUENCE THE USE OF RFID SELF-HELP
2.3 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE USE OF RFID SELF-HELP .
2.4 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING RFID SELF-HELP
2.5 MODEL FOR THE STUDY DERIVED FROM THE LITERATURE STUDY
2.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THE APPROACH TO THE RESEARCH
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.4 DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND PROCEDURES
3.5 TARGET POPULATION AND SAMPLING
3.6 LOW RESPONSE RATE
3.7 DATA ANALYSIS
3.8 ENSURING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
3.9 RESEARCH ETHICS
3.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESPONDENTS TO THE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS
4.3 RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION VERSUS THE MANUAL CIRCULATION
4.4 USE OF THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION SERVICES BY LIBRARY
4.5 FREQUENCY OF USE OF THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION
4.6 SATISFACTION WITH USE OF THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION
4.7 EASE OF USE OF THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION SERVICES
4.8 OBJECTIVES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION
4.9 BEST PRACTICE THAT INFLUENCES THE USE OF THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION SERVICES
4.10 FACTORS HAVING AN INFLUENCE ON THE RFID SELF-HELP
4.11 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING THE RFID SELF-HELP SERVICES
4.12 RFID EQUIPMENT ONLY USED BY LIBRARY STAFF
4.13 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION 
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 INDICATORS OF FACTORS, BEST PRACTICE, ADVANTAGES AND
5.3 BEST PRACTICE THAT INFLUENCES THE USE OF THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION SERVICES FOR SERVICE DELIVERY TO LIBRARY
5.4 FACTORS HAVING AN INFLUENCE ON THE RFID SELF-HELP CIRCULATION SERVICES
5.5 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING THE RFID SELF-HELP .. SERVICES
5.6 RFID EQUIPMENT USED ONLY BY LIBRARY STAFF
5.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM THE STUDY 
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
6.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.4 FURTHER RESEARCH
6.5 CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
THE USE OF RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION SELF-HELP CIRCULATION SERVICES FOR THE DELIVERY OF USER SERVICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA LIBRARY SERVICES

Related Posts