Search results

The purpose of these experiments is to find out whether and how reading behavior might be influenced by reading devices.

In total, three experiments, the first one more independent from the second and third, investigate how European Library and Information Science students react to electronic reading devices, unfamiliar as they are with them. The second and third experiments explore implications such as reading rate, concentration and symptoms of fatigue in conjunction with electronic reading devices. Test objects were the Sony eBook Reader, the IREX iLiad, LCD computer screens, Laptops and the Smart Phone HTC Touch HD in comparison with printed documents and books.

Contrary to common opinion, the results indicate a trend that concentration and/or reading rates do not suffer from reading on electronic reading devices. Further, it was found that influences on reading rate and concentration are posed rather by the individual reading behavior of a person, as well as by the nature of a text (scholarly or novelistic), than by the reading devices used.

Problems included the limited means to acquire technical support. The first experiment, in particular, suffered from inadequate equipment such as audio recordings that were too quiet. The value of the statistics is limited by the small number of test subjects and test runs. Additionally, the test persons had differing experience in reading with an electronic device. Two had used an electronic reading device before, whilst the others never had.

Based on the findings in recent literature, experiments such as this have rarely been conducted. Research in this particular field, i.e. print vs screen reading performance in adults, is sparse in recent history and more often done through examining personal preferences. To the knowledge of the authors, the research has never been done from the perspective of Library and Information Science (LIS). The preliminary results question common assumptions and theses.

The purpose of this paper is to verify the proposition by the University of Illinois, Urbana‐Champaign (UIUC), that their return on investment (ROI) formula developed for academic libraries and based on hard facts is broad enough to be used throughout the world for ROI studies in academic institutions/libraries. It further aims to verify that UIUC's methodology is adaptable enough to work in other academic environments as well.

The methodology developed by UIUC (an ROI formula developed for academic libraries based on grant proposal applications and citations) has been “copied” and thereby adapted to enable it to be used in an academic environment in Europe/Germany.

The methodology developed by UIUC was adaptable enough to be used in a German academic environment for calculating the ROI of a University library. However, the methodology was sometimes complicated and therefore simplified for this and possible further studies. Likewise, the ROI formula was very complex and this study found that it was possible to simplify it as well for further use.

There was difficulty in gathering all the information necessary for conducting such a study in Germany as grant proposals contain sensitive data that people are unwilling to display. Further, it was noticeable that German statistics on funding were unable to provide the necessary data without further enquiries, despite the German law that public institutions are obliged to disclose funding information.

Previously no one else has tried to verify the methodology for an ROI study developed by UIUC. This study gives evidence that UIUC was right in claiming that their ROI formula developed for academic institutions/libraries may be used for any academic library in the world. Further, this study shows how the formula and the methodology may be adapted to fit individual academic environments.