youssra
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Chapter One introduced the research problem that deals with a College library which has to improve the quality of its service against all odds, and suggested KM principles as worth looking into towards that end. This chapter was a review of the literature on KM in general and in libraries in particular. It sought to give a deeper understanding of KM and the different schools of thought, as well as the effect of proposed different organizational management styles on it. This was in the context of studying ways that KM can be applied, or not applied by librarians at MCNY in a changing information environment.
Role of literature review
It is difficult to start doing research with no reference to other scholars. At the beginning of the research process, it can be unclear how to identify the aim of the endeavour. The need for doing research may seem obvious because of a desire to increase operational efficiency, but articulating the idea in a manner that is systematic and organized can be complicated.
Doing some reading on the topic helps clarify matters. While the aim of a literature review is to support one‟s argument, it also summarizes and synthesizes the ideas that others have already put forward. The discovery of gaps which have not yet been covered by previous research helps refine and shape the direction of the investigation (Wilkinson, 2000). It then puts into perspective the practicality of ideas that one has or has come across. Leedy and Ormrod (2005: 64) confirm that the review of literature allows one “to look again” (re + view) at what others have done in areas that are similar, though not necessarily identical to, one‟s own area of investigation”.The knowledge that previous research has been done and literature is available on a topic makes it important to read those texts. The literature can be anything from a set of documents that originate from government, scholarly articles, to books, and institutional documents. When doing a review, one‟s personal opinion on whether or not one is in agreement with the sources and the conclusions reached is not necessary. What is important is how succinctly the literature in use supports the subject of research.According to Toncich (1999: 160), this means being “an impartial learner”. It also matters to consider the time period the literature review covers. KM application in libraries is a growing area of research, therefore current information is very relevant. It is important to have a summary and synthesis of the literature review. This is because a summary of the literature reviewed is a recap of the important information of the resources, and a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It may end up giving a new interpretation of old material or combining new with old interpretations. Leedy and Ormrod (2005: 80) suggest that in the summary, “you gather up all that has been said and describe its importance in terms of the research problem”. In this case, it may also help trace the intellectual progression of the field of librarianship, including major debates. In doing a literature review for this study, it was possible to evaluate the sources and use those that were most pertinent or relevant to KM practice in the library. The literature review therefore acted as a type of handy guide, that is, a useful resource that helped guide the research process and maintain focus. The research and views of scholars like Ajiferuke (2003), Branin (2003), Hamid and Nayan (2007), Jain (2007), Lynch and Smith (2001), Maponya (2004), Ngulube and Lwoga (2007), Rowley (2001, 1999), Sarrafzadeh, Martin and Hazeri (2006), and Vasconcelos (2008) who see librarians progressing from collection managers to KM practitioners, therefore requiring additional skills to remain relevant, were significant in understanding the topic.
Doing literature review helped in finding out what methodologies and sampling procedures have been used before. In so doing, it was possible to match the effectiveness of the methodologies against the results obtained. This gave insight into how to come up with a research strategy, and be able to justify its appropriateness for this research project. It also gave direction on the need to cite as well as in the proper referencing style in library science.
Referencing
Referencing is letting readers know where you learned or found the information that you are writing. When quoting a source or reference as authoritative, that is referred to as citing. Citations demonstrate the existence of knowledge and an understanding of the subject, an awareness of works and authors that have been instrumental in the development of, or provide meaningful comment on the subject, and provide a framework to work in a thesis. Bell (2005: 63) points out that:
the best way to ensure you will never use other people‟s words or ideas as your own without acknowledgement is to be meticulous about your note-taking and in recording exact details of references. References are “frozen footprints in the landscape of scholarly achievement; footprints which bear witness to the passage of ideas” (Cronin, 1981:16). There are several automatic ways of organizing citations in existence nowadays that one can use in the process of doing the research. For this study, ZOTERO was used. This is a free open source Mozilla Firefox add-on that works with Microsoft Word to collect, organize, and cite sources. Its major weakness at the time of this research was that it only worked in the context of Firefox, and no other browser. Files obtained from anywhere else had to be saved and imported manually, and that discouraged its maximum use. Citations were accessible only from the computer that its software was installed on, and the researcher found that to be a major inconvenience. A number of databases which were extensively used as sources of scholarly articles in this research now allow direct exportation of citations into such citation organization packages as Reference Manager,ProCite, BibTex, Refworks, Endnote, and Turnitin. Examples include EBSCOhost,SAGE, WilsonWeb, Emerald, JSTOR, and LexisNexis. To export citations using ZOTERO, one was limited to using the Mozilla Firefox browser.
Sources of information
The most used research information in this study originated from various sources. For example, an examination was made of institutional documents such as the Audrey Cohen Archive (a collection of materials that explain the visions, about college education, of the founder of the school), the library handbook, and a study of usage patterns of databases was done. MCNY library practice, as specified in the library handbook, is based on the standards of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Objectives for Information Literacy Instruction: a Model Statement for Academic Libraries (2001). These standards require that librarians be involved in the promotion of information literacy in their workplaces. ACRL also gives guidelines for faculty and administrator information literacy, which is one of the major requirements of the Middle States Commission. The concern with information literacy arises from the assumption that individuals that are information literate appreciate the importance of quality information, and know how to retrieve and use it. As such, they also can be effective creators of valuable information, and subsequently knowledge. This forms one of the bases for faculty – librarian collaboration. The place of information literacy in KM is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DEDICATION
DECLARATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background to statement of the problem
1.1.1 The changing library environment
1.1.2 Research focus
1.1.3 Definition of terms and concepts
1.1.3.1 Defining academic librarian
1.1.3.2 Defining information
1.1.3.3 Defining information environment
1.1.3.4 Defining knowledge
1.1.3.5 Defining knowledge environment
1.1.3.6 Defining knowledge management
1.1.3.7 Defining knowledge management practices
1.1.3.8 Defining Web 2.0 technologies
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Research objectives
1.4 Research questions
1.5 Justification for the research
1.6 Originality of the study
1.7 Research methodology and design
1.7.1 Research methodology
1.7.2 Research design
1.7.3 Sample frame
1.7.4 Data collection methods
1.8 Data analysis and presentation
1.9 Ethical considerations
1.10 Scope and limitations of the study
1.11 Outline of the thesis chapters
1.12 Referencing style used in the thesis
1.13 Summary
CHAPTER TWO: Literature review
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Role of literature review
2.1.1 Referencing
2.2 Sources of information
2.3 Map of research literature
2.4 Changing information environment
2.5 Use of theory in library science research
2.5.1 Critical realism theory
2.5.2 The fuzzy set theory
2.5.3 Probability theory
2.5.4 The grand unified theory
2.5.5 Grounded theory
2.6 Foundations of knowledge management
2.6.1 Economic school
2.6.2 Technocentric school
2.6.3 Behavioural school
2.7 Knowledge management practices
2.8 Development of library services
2.8.1 Collection development: 1950-1975
2.8.2 Collection management: 1975-2000
2.8.3 Knowledge management: 2000 onwards
2.9 Paradigm shift in library science
2.10 Knowledge management in libraries
2.11 Studies related to knowledge management practices in libraries
2.12 Management styles and knowledge management
2.13 Knowledge management tools and techniques
2.14 Synthesis and evaluation of theory
2.15 Chapter summary
CHAPTER THREE: Research methodology
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Justifying the research paradigm and methodology
3.2 Qualitative versus quantitative distinction
3.3 Research procedures
3.3.1 Case study research method
3.3.2 Action research process
3.3.3 Validity and reliability in a case study
3.3.4 Validity and reliability in action research
3.4 Justification for mixed methods research methodology
3.4.1 Validity in mixed methods research methodology
3.5 Sampling procedures
3.5.1 Population
3.5.1.1 Sample selection
3.5.1.2 Sample size
3.6 Sources of evidence
3.6.1 Questionnaires
3.6.1.1 Questionnaire structure
3.6.1.1.1 Open-ended questionnaire
3.6.1.1.2 Closed-ended questionnaire
3.6.1.2 Length of questionnaires
3.6.1.3 Design of questionnaire
3.6.1.4 Pretesting questionnaires
3.6.1.5 Administering the questionnaires
3.6.2 Document reviews
3.6.3 Interviews
3.6.4 Observation
3.7 Data analysis and presentation
3.8 Evaluation of the research methodology
3.9 Chapter summary
CHAPTER FOUR: Findings and presentation of results
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Quantitative findings
4.2 Questionnaire
4.2.1 Characteristics of respondents
4.2.2 Metropolitan College of New York understanding of knowledge management
4.2.3 Knowledge retention
4.2.3.1 Knowledge retention practices at Metropolitan College of New York
4.2.3.2 Best practices database for knowledge retention
4.2.3.3 Barriers to knowledge storage
4.2.4 Knowledge transfer and practices at Metropolitan College of New York
4.2.5 Knowledge generation/ creation
4.2.5.1 Documented processes for knowledge creation
4.2.5.2 Sources of skills and competencies for knowledge creation
4.2.6 Knowledge acquisition
4.2.6.1 Expert skills at MCNY
4.2.6.2 Professional training
4.2.6.3 Regular assessment of practices
4.2.7 Knowledge organization
4.3 Structured Observation
4.3.1 Understanding of knowledge management at Metropolitan College of New York
4.3.2 Knowledge retention
4.3.3 Knowledge transfer/ sharing
4.3.4 Knowledge generation/ creation
4.3.5 Knowledge acquisition
4.3.6 Knowledge organization
4.4 Qualitative findings
4.5 Institutional documents
4.5.1 Knowledge retention
4.5.2 Knowledge transfer/ sharing
4.5.3 Knowledge acquisition
4.5.4 Knowledge organization
4.6 Interviews
4.6.1 Characteristics of interviewees
4.6.2 Understanding of knowledge management principles
4.6.3 Knowledge retention
4.6.4 Knowledge transfer/ sharing
4.6.5 Knowledge generation/ creation
4.6.6 Knowledge organization
4.7 Summary
4.7.1 Librarians, faculty, and administrators and their understanding of knowledge management
4.7.2 The knowledge needs of the Metropolitan College of New York community
4.7.3 Knowledge retention policies, practices and gaps at Metropolitan College of New York
4.7.4 Modern technologies in use at Metropolitan College of New York that enhance the environment for knowledge management practice
4.7.5 Tools, methods and techniques used for knowledge assessment and knowledge acquisition at the Metropolitan College of New York library
4.7.6 Tools, methods and techniques used for knowledge transfer at the Metropolitan College of New York library
CHAPTER FIVE: Analysis and interpretation of results
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Data analysis
5.1.1 Data correlation
5.1.2 Data consolidation
5.1.2.1 Data convergence
5.1.2.2 Data inconsistency
5.1.2.3 Contradictory data
5.1.3 Data comparison/ combination and integration: qualitative and quantitative results
5.2 Interpretation of findings
5.2.1 Knowledge capture and retention
5.2.2 Knowledge acquisition
5.2.3 Knowledge sharing/ transfer practices in the Metropolitan College of New York library
5.2.4 Knowledge creation/ generation
5.2.5 Knowledge organization/ classification
5.3 Synthesis
5.4 Chapter summary
CHAPTER SIX: Summary of study findings, conclusions and recommendations
6.0 Introduction
6.1 Research purpose and research questions
6.2 Summary of the findings
6.2.1 Understaning of knowledge management by librarians, faculty, and administrators
6.2.2 Knowledge needs of the Metropolitan College of New York community
6.2.3 Knowledge retention policies, practices and gaps at Metropolitan College of New York
6.2.4 Modern technologies in use at Metropolitan College of New York that enhance the environment for knowledge management practice
6.2.5 Tools, methods and techniques used for knowledge assessment and knowledge acquisition at the Metropolitan College of New York library
6.2.6 Tools, methods and techniques used for knowledge transfer at the Metropolitan College of New York library
6.3 Conclusions
6.3.1 Conclusions on the Metropolitan College of New York understanding of knowledge management
6.3.2 Conclusions on the knowledge needs of the Metropolitan College of New York community
6.3.3 Conclusions on the knowledge retention policies, practices and gaps at Metropolitan College of New York
6.3.4 Conclusions on the modern technologies in use at Metropolitan College of New York that enhance the environment for knowledge management practice
6.3.5 Conclusions on the tools, methods and techniques used for knowledge assessment and knowledge acquisition at the Metropolitan College of New York library
6.3.6 Conclusions on the tools, methods and techniques used for knowledge transfer at the Metropolitan College of New York library
6.3.7 Overall conclusions on the research problem
6.4 Recommendations
6.4.1 Recommendations on the Metropolitan College of New York understanding of knowledge management
6.4.2 Recommendations on the knowledge needs of the Metropolitan College of New York community
6.4.3 Recommendations on implementing knowledge retention policies, practices and finding gaps that are in existence at Metropolitan College of New York
6.4.4 Recommendations on implementing modern technologies at Metropolitan College of New York that enhance the environment for knowledge management practice
6.4.5 Recommendations on implementing tools, methods and techniques for knowledge assessment and knowledge acquisition at the Metropolitan College of New York library
6.4.6 Recommendations on implementing tools, methods and techniques for knowledge transfer at the Metropolitan College of New York library
6.5 Implications of the research for theory and practice
6.6 Suggestions for further research
6.7 Final conclusion
6.8 List of references
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND THE ROLE OF AN ACADEMIC LIBRARY IN A CHANGING INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT: THE CASE OF THE METROPOLITAN COLLEGE OF NEW YORK
