Practice of Infopreneurship by Librarians in Public University Libraries in South-South Nigeria
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective – The aim of this study was to examine the practice of infopreneurship by librarians in public university libraries in South-South Nigeria. The study specifically intended to identify purposes of engaging in infopreneurship, methods of running infopreneurship, forms of infopreneurship practiced, benefits derived from practicing infopreneurship, and challenges encountered in practicing infopreneurship by the librarians. Methods – The population of the study comprised all 175 librarians in 13 public university libraries in South-South Nigeria, which were purposively chosen for the study. The study employed convenience sampling to engage 102 librarians in the university libraries, who were involved in one form of infopreneurship or another. The librarians were identified through preliminary investigation, observation, and interaction with the librarians by the researchers. The instrument for data collection was a self-designed online questionnaire titled, “Librarians’ Infopreneurship Practice Questionnaire (LIPQ).” The instrument was validated by two experts in the Department of Library and Information Science in Niger Delta University, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Reliability test was not conducted on the instrument, based on the knowledge that a valid test tends to be reliable. The researchers distributed 128 digital copies of the draft of the validated questionnaire to the librarians through personal WhatsApp accounts of the librarians, WhatsApp groups of the various university libraries and WhatsApp groups of the different state chapters of the Nigerian Library Association to which the librarians belonged. Out of the 128 questionnaires administered, 102 were properly completed by the librarians and returned, producing a response rate of 97.69%. The data collected were analyzed using weighted mean and standard deviation. Results – The results from data analysis revealed that the librarians’ purposes of engaging in infopreneurship were to earn extra income, provide for post-retirement, meet unforeseen demands, and develop themselves. The librarians’ methods of running infopreneurship were leveraging, customizing, facilitating access to, and providing instant delivery of information. They used the following forms of infopreneurship: information brokerage, reprographic services, research-aid services, book vending and internet services. Finally, challenges faced by the librarians in practicing infopreneurship were lack of adequate finance, business infrastructure, technical skill, and high rate of presence of non-professional infopreneurs. Conclusion – The findings in this study demonstrate that librarians under study practice infopreneurship primarily for purposes of making money and self-sustenance. They achieve this by leveraging, customizing, facilitating access to and providing quick delivery of information. With these methods, the librarians engage in information brokerage, reprographic services, internet services, research-aid services and book vending. In return, these information professionals enjoy additional income, financial independence, accumulated knowledge, and enhanced sense of fulfillment. However, the practice of infopreneurship by the librarians is hindered by shortage of sufficient funds, technical know-how, business facilities and high rate of presence of unprofessional infopreneurs in the business.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».