Sangeeta Dhamdhere & Egbert Smet(2017). "Universities should pay attention to their library web-based services to place higher in World ranking systems". Paper accepted and presented at the International Journal of Arts and Sciences International Conference on Education going to be held from 22 to 26 May 2017at Harvard Medical School, 77, Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston, Massachusetts.

1. Universities and their web-based library
services : a study of their relationship.
by
drs. Sangeeta Namdev Dhamdhere, India
and
dr. Egbert de Smet, Belgium

2. The idea/topic
Methodology
Some findings
Some conclusions

3. •Universities everywhere try to improve their
quality as reflected in international rankings
University libraries everywhere try to improve
their quality by offering more and better
services, often web-based ones
•Is there a relationship in between the quality
of the university and their university library
as reflected by its web-based services ?

4. The ‘prequel’ : USA vs. India

This research is the PhD. project of mrs. S. Dhamdhere (India),
currently submitted for public defense

A pilot-research to test the methodology was done with the
Indian and USA-university samples, analyzing their web-
services and ranking correlation.

This research was reported at the Boston IJAS 2015 conference
and published in : Journal of Teaching and Education, CD-ROM.
ISSN: 2165-6266 :: 04(02):175–196 (2015)

The current research expands the ‘USA’ to the ‘World’ sample of
universities, compared to India (as per my comments on the IJAS2015
conference)

5. The challenge for libraries
●
Modern libraries operate in a wide information services
environment
●
The library website has become the dominant tool to
present the multitude of information services
●
Southern libraries can learn from Western top-libraries
on how to improve their information- and education
services via their website
= a ‘best practices’ approach

6. •Sampling top-western libraries in sample
‘World’
•Sampling Southern libraries in sample ‘India’
•Producing an inventory of their websites
with the services offered there
•Clustering the services into groups
•Quantitative comparison in between the 2
samples by groups of services
•Correlations in between rankings
•[examples and illustrations as ‘best
practices’]

7. 
Western top libraries : the top 70 from
‘Webometrics Ranking of World Universities’

39 Indian top libraries as per the National
Institutional Ranking (National Assessment
and Accreditation Council 2016)
• For all institutions the library website was
analyzed
– Identification
– Counting
– clustering of services

8. World sample of universities

11. •Datasets
•Access to Databases
•Search tools
•Catalogues
•Find a Library
•Archives /Digital Collections
•Visual Databases

12. News
Upcoming Events
Blogs
Twitter
Facebook
Email
Instant Chat
Ask Us
Tumbir
Stumbleupon
Linked in
Research guides
Video Tutorials
FAQs
Ask an Archivist
Youtube
service directory
PPTs
Research Tutorials
Tips for access and use
Newsletter
tools for discovery
flickr
Help guides
RSS Feeds
Mobile App
Live Sessions
Flash
Brainshark
Pinterest
iTunes
Instagram
Prezi(PPT tool)
Foursquare
Audio Tutorials
Edocument Delivery
Maps Directions
Feedback
Live Videos Library
Google+
Staff Wikis
Library Calender
Delicious
AOLmail
Favourites
Friendfeed
New arrivals
Photo gallery
Text Instruction
Book Recommendations (Publishers and
online book shops links)

13. •Higher-sophistication specific services, e.g. :
•Exhibitions
•Virtual Book Tour
•Inscription (reservation of seat)
•Inter – Library Loans
•Interactive games, puzzles and moview/short films
•Webbased Publishing platform for Patrons:
•Open Access Initiatives
•Platform to authors and journals
•Wordpress
•University Records Management
•Antiplagarism Software access
•Citation Tools
•Coursework

14. Average scores for full sample

15. Quantitative analysis : comparing
the mean scores

The average number of services (by cluster) offered in
each sample is calculated

These ‘mean’ values are compared in between the two
samples with Chi-Square and T-test values

These values allow to declare differences as
‘significant’ (at a given level of 0.05) or ‘by
coincidence’.

16. T-test and Chi-Square test

Levene’s test : should we assume equality or non-equality of
variances in between 2 samples ?

T-test : a calculated value which should end up LOWER
than the significance level chosen, e.g. 0.05 (95%).

Chi-Square : more or less the same as t-test but better for
‘categorical’ variables, e.g. 0/1 or Y/N (presence/absence)

The calculated X-square value is checked in available
standard tables and should be lower than the table-values
for the same parameters (e.g. ‘freedom degrees’)

17. T-tests summary

World and Indian university libraries have very significant
differences when it comes to web-services
service sample mean T-test mean
difference
T-value sign.
bibliographical services World 8.086 5.5216 10.645 0.001
India 2.564
educational services World 16.229 11.9987 11.484 0.001
India 4.231
communication tools World 5.957 5.1366 10.674 0.000
India 0.821
publishing platform World 3.3357 2.87 10.356 0.000
India 0.487
all services World 33.629 25.526 12.71 0.000
India 8.103

18. Pearson correlation univ-lib ranking

Universities and their libraries’ ranks correlate significantly :
better universities have better libraries, but this is much less
the case in the Indian sample.

19. Correlation univ-library ranking
(cont.)

When we consider all web-based services offered by all 109 top world and
Indian universities, it is observed that the top five world universities, according
to Webometric Ranking of Universities, i.e. Harvard University, Stanford
University, Cornell University, University of Michigan and University of
California Berkeley (Avg. 51) are also topping in offering web-based services.
In the USA the correlation is very high : 0.76

In India the top 6 positions are for resp. Jawaharlal Nehru University, Tata
Institute of Social Science, University of Hyderabad, Maharishi Dayanand
University, Pondicherry University, and finally North Eastern Hill University (6th
position) in offering web-based library services. This differs significantly from
their actual NAAC University rankings, so correlation is low.

Bibliographical services as more ‘traditional library service’, while representing
only 1/7th in the USA libraries, have a much higher share of about 1/3 of the
average score in India, meaning their emphasis is still very ‘traditional’.

20. Conclusions

In this research the researchers tried to create an inventory of web-based services
and best practices offered by various top world libraries and clustered them.

This inventory will help and give inspiration to all other university libraries who are
looking to initiate and improve their websites and web-based services.

The findings show a correlation between university rankings and library web-based
services rankings at the international level but not at the national level for many
developing regions of the World.

University libraries in developing countries should pay more attention to their web-
based library services, which can help them to increase their web-presence and get
better positions for their patron-universities in the world ranking systems

21. THANK YOU
As this is a preparatory study for an Indian PhD study by
ms. Sangeeta Dhamdere,
all feedback is welcome to :
modernlibrary.sangeeta@gmail.com

26. •USA libraries on average offer 30 services,
Indian libraries only offer slightly less than 6
such services on average
•bibliographical services as more ‘traditional
library service’, while representing only 1/7th
in the USA libraries, have a much higher share
of about 1/3 of the average score in India,
meaning their emphasis is still very
‘traditional’

29. •The Pearson correlation coefficient of 0,23 for
Indian libraries indicates a positive but rather
low relationship in between the ranking and
number of library services offered
•The same coefficient for USA library websites
related to their university's ranking is 0,76,
indicating a strong relationship in between the
‘quality’ of the universities and their libraries
as measured by no. of services offered (on
their websites).

30.  What if we would observe a much wider
sample of universities, not only the top-ones
but creating a much higher variety in the
‘quality’ axis (as measured by the
rankings) ?
 What if we could also check services
offered, not only directly but also after
logging in at certain websites, perhaps
revealing more/other types of services ?

31. •This methodology, albeit being very labour-
intensive, could be elaborated to compare
larger or more different subsets of libraries
from developed and developing countries, or
comparing specific countries.
•Indian libraries could benefit from taking
inspiration from the list we drew from the USA
university library websites and changing their
nature into a more diversified spectrum of
services offered

32. THANK YOU
As this is a preparatory study for an Indian
PhD study by ms. Sangeeta Dhamdere, all
feedback is welcome to :
modernlibrary.sangeeta@gmail.com