Content area
Purpose
This study aims to assess the extent to which Uganda university libraries have implemented digital transformation technologies and to determine the facilitators and barriers affecting the implementation of digital transformation in selected university libraries in Uganda.
Design/methodology/approach
This study used a convergent parallel mixed methods design. It was conducted in six selected university libraries in Uganda, which were in three private and three public universities. The study sample included 103 librarians with a minimum qualification of a bachelor’s degree and six library directors.
Findings
The findings indicated that there was an average (n = 37, 48.7%) implementation of digital transformation in the selected university libraries in Uganda. Some of the barriers hindering digital transformation included inadequate funding, lack of awareness of digital technologies, inadequate ICT skills, insufficient ICT infrastructure and limited staff among others. There is a need for library management to provide support in the form of funds, policies and human resources to implement such digital transformation.
Research limitations/implications
The criteria for choosing universities were those that have been around for at least 10 years. The reason for this was that it was assumed that these universities would have well-established staff development programmes and procedures as well as be likely to have incorporated technology into their services, including libraries. This study’s limitations stem from the fact that this criterion for selection might not apply to all Ugandan university libraries, particularly those that are less than 10 years old and may not have been well represented in this study.
Originality/value
The magnitude of the problem of digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda is unclear because of the limited research available in the Uganda library and information science field. This study presents the status of digital transformation in Uganda university libraries.
Background
Digital transformation has reshaped the nature of higher education. It has created new opportunities such as learning at one’s convenience and enhanced continuing education (Bilyalova et al., 2020). Some technological developments in universities include massive open online courses, open education and open education resources. Moreover, more recent technological advancements in higher education institutions have been mostly induced by the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) (Benavides et al., 2020). Digital transformation technologies are powered by disruptive digital technologies and processes, which have caused a shift in education paradigms (Anuradha, 2018). Therefore, for academic institutions to stay relevant in the digital age, they need to harness digital power by adopting digital transformation. However, this requires a joint effort from all stakeholders and key players in shaping their parent institutions to thrive in the digital age (Sandhu, 2018). As university libraries are considered a major player in the digital transformation of the university, the onset of the digital revolution coupled with users’ changing needs has seen them transform.
University libraries are under pressure to reinvent and adapt to the developments in digital technologies, scholarly communication, evolving educational pedagogy and the ever-changing diverse needs of faculty, students and researchers (Saunders, 2015). To remain relevant, they must respond to current trends and anticipate users’ future needs, and at the same time develop innovative initiatives to address those needs. University libraries in the 21st century engage in digital transformation by adopting technological trends, such as implementing innovations in scholarly communication, creating spaces for collaborative and creative learning, increasing attention to research data management (RDM), preservation and curation, promotion and use of mobile technologies and social media, acquisition of electronic resources and integration of ICTs (Anuradha, 2018; Cox, 2019; Ellis et al., 2014; Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016; Hamad et al., 2018). In addition, university libraries have implemented cloud computing technologies making them “greener” (Enefu et al., 2015) and smarter (Wada, 2018), integrated library management systems (ILMS) to enhance operational efficiency by integrating library functions such as acquisition, cataloguing, management, circulation and the online public access catalogue (OPAC) (Komolafe-Opadeji and Ojo, 2019; Ponelis and Adoma, 2018; Aregbesola et al., 2019) and discovery tools (Jantzi et al., 2016; Stukalova and Guskov, 2016).
Furthermore, university libraries are affected by the latest digital transformation resulting from the 4IR, also known as Industry 4.0. The 4IR has been described as the “next stage in digital transformation” (Nwaohiri and Nwosu, 2021), and has transformed the way people live, communicate and work (Xu et al., 2018). University libraries have responded to the 4IR by implementing several trends, such as digital scholarship, robotics artificial intelligence, 3D printing, cloud-based computing, virtual reality and big data (Chigwada and Chisita, 2021; Ellen Frederick, 2016; Nwaohiri and Nwosu, 2021; Ocholla and Ocholla, 2020). This adoption of new trends has supported the provision of value-added quality information services, enhanced information retrieval, allowed remote access to available electronic resources and facilitated the storage of large quantities of data in compact spaces (Husain, 2015; Saleem et al., 2013; Hussain, 2019).
However, numerous university libraries in Africa are lagging in dealing with new information environments (Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016; Bornman, 2016). Africa’s slow adoption of the technological “shift” has been attributed to inadequate ICT literacy skills, inadequate funding, poor or insufficient ICT infrastructure, ignorance of ICT technologies and limited computer facilities (Abubakar, 2011; Asogwa and Ugwu, 2015; Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016). In addition, university libraries in Uganda lack well-equipped staff with the competencies to effect digital transformation (Kacunguzi and Samuel, 2017). Many librarians attained their qualifications before the beginning of the 4IR and the introduction of other technological advancements that have rapidly transformed the university library landscape. Furthermore, library and information science (LIS) schools generally provide inadequate training in course areas such as ICT (Okello-Obura and Kigongo-Bukenya, 2011), which has negatively impacted the ability of LIS graduates to cope with the demands created by digital technologies (Kacunguzi and Samuel, 2017). The slow or late adoption of technological trends poses a challenge for librarians who are under pressure to provide quality services to meet the high expectations and diverse, ever-changing demands of students, faculty and researchers. However, a review of extant literature does not show the extent to which digital transformation technologies have been implemented in university libraries in Uganda. Therefore, this study aimed to address the following research questions:
To what extent have the selected university libraries in Uganda implemented digital transformation?
What barriers affect the implementation of digital transformation in the selected university libraries in Uganda?
What facilitators enhance the implementation of digital transformation in the selected university libraries in Uganda?
Conceptual framework
Digital transformation refers to integrating technologies into library services to meet users’ needs. Universities must leverage the power of digital transformation if they are to stay relevant in this era where every aspect of life is affected by various technologies. University libraries can be early adopters of trending technologies. Therefore, they provide a platform for digital transformation in the university, which makes their role crucial (Sandhu, 2018). University libraries have evolved from traditional services and adopted trending technologies to meet their users’ ever-changing and sophisticated needs and remain relevant in their institutions (Bawack, 2019; Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016; Shonhe and Jain, 2017). Digital transformation concerns adopting technologies to increase value (Ebert and Duarte, 2018) and operational agility (Shonhe and Jain, 2017). Some of the notable digital transformation technologies that have been adopted in university libraries include mobile technologies, social media, institutional repositories, RDM, e-resources, library management systems (Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016; Shonhe and Jain, 2017), online reference services, discovery tools (Abbas and Siddique, 2020) and the 4IR technologies (Ayinde and Kirkwood, 2020).
The proliferation of technologies in university libraries requires librarians to upskill and acquire digital competencies. Digital competencies refer to a combination of skills, knowledge, digital literacy, attitudes and awareness required in the development and managing digital information systems (Ferrari, 2012). Furthermore, the university libraries should display their readiness by having adequate financial resources, adequate staff and ICT equipment for installing and implementing digital transformation. However, inadequate funding has been reported as a major problem for many university libraries, especially in low-income countries (Rafiq et al., 2018) as university libraries are poorly funded. The chronic financial challenges faced by libraries have affected the acquisition of technological and information resources (Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016).
Top management support is reflected in having a supportive leadership that formulates strategic plans, decides which technologies to adopt and facilitates technology implementation. This makes the role of management vital in the uptake of digital transformation in university libraries. For example, Al-Awadhi and Al-Daihani (2019) reported that management support was critical in the adoption of social media. However, the absence of managerial support was cited as a challenge hindering Nigerian university libraries from deploying robots (Odeyemi, 2019) and the implementation of LMS (Buwule and Ponelis, 2017; Olatunji et al., 2020). These and more are some of the facilitators and barriers affecting digital transformation within university libraries as indicated in the literature. Therefore, this study used the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 to address the research questions.
Methods and materials
Study design
The study used a convergent parallel mixed methods design; both qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously (Morse and Niehaus, 2016). However, the data were analysed separately, and the qualitative and quantitative results were compared to identify contradictions, convergence or divergence between the two data sets (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). The selection of a convergent parallel mixed methods design facilitated the inclusion of multiple perspectives and enabled a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied. It is important to note that there were distinct differences in the roles of the two participant groups, which comprised library directors in management positions and librarians.
Population and sampling
The population for this study was divided into two distinct groups. To begin with, it comprised libraries located within 26 universities in Uganda that had been operational for a minimum of 10 years [National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), 2020]. These universities were selected based on the assumption that they possessed well-established programmes and structures. The study used a multilevel sampling approach, specifically stratified random sampling, with two strata representing public and private university libraries. This ensured adequate representation of both subgroups within the population (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). The researchers purposively selected the six oldest public and private universities to participate: Kyambogo University, Makerere University, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Islamic University In Uganda, Ndejje University and Uganda Martyrs University [National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), 2020]. These universities were chosen due to their seniority, presumed well-established programmes and structures and potential to provide valuable information for the study.
In addition, the sample consisted of all 103 librarians (excluding library directors) who held at least a bachelor’s degree qualification working in the six university libraries. This decision was based on the small, well-defined nature of the population. In addition, this choice was made due to their educational background, roles and responsibilities within the library. As a result, they were deemed capable of providing valuable insights into the impact of continuing professional development (CPD) on the digital transformation of university libraries, drawing upon their knowledge, perspectives and experiences. Regarding the qualitative phase, purposive sampling was employed to deliberately select participants who could provide valuable insights into the research topic. These library leaders were considered key informants who offered valuable perspectives on their involvement in fostering the implementation of digital transformation initiatives. This deliberate selection enhanced the results and acknowledged the researchers’ autonomy in choosing the sample (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017; Oso and Onen, 2008; Kothari, 2004).
Data collection
An online survey questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data from all librarians (excluding library directors) who held at least a bachelor’s degree and were employed in the selected universities in Uganda. The library staff list was used to identify eligible librarians. The researchers sought assistance from library leaders in distributing the survey links, which were shared through staff e-mails and WhatsApp groups. To address the low response rate, the researchers maintained regular communication with the respondents via phone calls, WhatsApp messages and in-person visits. The survey tool required approximately 20–25 min of the librarians’ time. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data from the six library directors working in the participating universities. These interviews allowed for additional probing to gather more information. The semi-structured interview guide comprised three major questions on the examples of the digital transformation technologies implemented in the university libraries, challenges faced in the implementation of the acquired digital competencies and the measures used by the library to enhance digital implementation.
Data integrity
To maximize the validity of the study, the quantitative component involved surveying the entire population of librarians (census) instead of using sampling. This approach aimed to enhance the credibility of the findings. In addition, investigating the same concepts in both the qualitative and quantitative approaches helped reduce the likelihood of obtaining results that are difficult to compare (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). To ensure the clarity and appropriateness of the data collection instruments, the researchers conducted a pre-test of the tools. The pre-testing phase began on July 8, 2023, and concluded on July 14, 2023. The results of the pre-test were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient measurement in SPSS® version 28. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.9, indicating good internal consistency of the measurement items. The Uganda Management Institute library represented public university libraries, whereas Uganda Christian University library represented private university libraries.
A member check was carried out to ensure the credibility of the qualitative data, which involved e-mailing the interview transcripts to the participants for accuracy confirmation. Rich verbatim quotes from participants were also used by the researchers to illustrate different ideas and allow readers to validate the interpretations made (Cope, 2014). In addition, the researchers used probes to seek clarification when needed, fostering a deeper understanding of the participants’ perspectives. Spending an hour or more with each participant on average during the qualitative phase allowed for prolonged involvement and in-depth discussions. The participants indicated a preference for conducting the interviews at their workplaces, where they felt comfortable and at ease during the discussions.
Data analysis
Quantitative data was downloaded from Google Drive and integrated into an MS Excel sheet. The data was cleaned by modifying and combining variables as needed. To prepare the MS Excel sheet for computer entry, codes were developed in a codebook and assigned to the various variables. Subsequently, the data was transferred to SPSS software version 28 for further analysis of the quantitative data collected from the survey questionnaires. The software facilitated the generation of descriptive statistics such as tables, figures, frequencies and percentages, which will be used for statistical reporting of the data. To analyse the qualitative data, this study used the reflexive thematic approach (RTA) proposed by Braun and Clarke (2019). The RTA consists of six phases: becoming familiar with the data, generating initial codes, developing themes, reviewing potential themes, defining and naming themes and producing the final report. Inductive thematic analysis was used, allowing themes to emerge from the coded data. However, a deductive approach was also used to ensure the identification of themes that directly addressed the research questions (Byrne, 2022).
Data integration
According to Fetters et al. (2013), there are three levels of integration found in mixed methods studies, which encompass design, methods and interpretation and reporting. Initially, the researchers used a convergent design, where both quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously to determine whether there were any points of convergence or divergence. In addition, this study used a merging approach, where qualitative and quantitative data were combined during the presentation of findings. In summary, integration was achieved through the narrative weaving approach, where the results from the questionnaire survey and individual interviews were presented together under the same themes. The study reported the quantitative statistical findings first, followed by qualitative results in the form of quotes to demonstrate agreement or disagreement with the quantitative results (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017).
Ethical considerations
Permission to conduct research was obtained in all six universities identified in the study. Subsequently, ethical approval was obtained from the University of South Africa Ethical Research Board. The researchers also sought ethical clearance from The Aids Organization (TASO) Research Ethics Review Committee (TASOREC/116/2022-UG-REC-009) and obtained research approval from the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (SS1317ES). Before seeking consent from participants, the researchers provided them with information sheets that outlined the study’s objectives, and expected outcomes, and emphasized the voluntary nature of participation, allowing participants to withdraw at any time. To maintain anonymity, participants’ names and any identifying information were not disclosed.
Results
Digital transformation in university libraries
Participating librarians were asked to indicate which digital technologies had been implemented in their libraries. From a total of 13 digital technologies, categories were formed where the number of responses was categorized as high (10.4–13; ≥80%), average (6.5–10.3; 50%–70%) and low (0–6.4; 0%–49%) implementation. These findings are presented in Table 1.
The findings showed that overall, there was an average (n = 37, 48.7%) implementation of digital transformation in the selected university libraries in Uganda. This indicated that most of the libraries had implemented 50%–70% of the listed digital technologies. Public university libraries had implemented the most (n = 50, 98%) digital transformation technologies compared with private university libraries (n = 21, 84.0%). There was high implementation of digital transformation in one public university (Kyambogo library; n = 10, 58.8%) and one private university (UMU library).
In addition, Figure 2 shows the ranking of the implemented digital technologies, it indicates that the highly implemented technologies in university libraries in Uganda were electronic resources (n = 74, 97.4%), IRs (n = 68, 89.5%), remote access (n = 63, 82.9%), OPAC (n = 63, 82.9%), social media (n = 49, 64.5%) and ILMS (n = 49, 64.5%). Others that were indicated included online reference services (n = 33, 43.4%), mobile technologies (n = 30, 39.5%) discovery or federated search tools (n = 13, 17.1%), RDM (n = 12, 15.8%), LibGuides (n = 9, 11.8%) and makerspaces (n = 3, 3.9%). However, 4IR technologies had not been implemented (0%) in any university library in Uganda.
Barriers and facilitators affecting digital transformation in university libraries
The dimensions in this section include facilitators and barriers to the implementation of digital transformation.
Facilitators of digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda
Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the facilitators shown in Table 2 had enhanced digital transformation in their libraries.
The results presented in Table 2 showed that the majority (n = 63, 83%) of participants reported that having trained or skilled librarians had greatly enhanced digital transformation in their libraries. Furthermore, 62 (82%) participants reported that having internet connectivity had boosted their libraries’ digital transformation, 55 (73%) indicated that having prior knowledge about the technologies had enabled them to implement these technologies and 54 (72%) believed that having automated systems in place played a huge role in the implementation of other technologies. The presence of library management support for the implementation of digital technologies was noted by many participants (n = 52, 68%). Mobile devices played a role in implementing technologies in university libraries (n = 51, 67%) and 45 (59%) participants reported that they were able to implement these technologies because of the availability of adequate funding. The findings further revealed that 42 (55%) participants indicated that they were able to implement digital transformation because of the low implementation costs and 41 (54%) reported that having relevant policies had enhanced digital transformation in their libraries. Thirty-nine (52%) participants indicated that creating adequate advocacy of trending technologies enhanced digital transformation in their libraries. Finally, 38 (51%) participants reported that the availability of adequate staffing had advanced digital transformation in their libraries.
Factors that were mentioned by the library directors during their interviews are presented in Figure 3.
Barriers hindering digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda
The researchers requested participating librarians to indicate the barriers that hindered the implementation of digital transformation in their libraries. These results are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 shows that most of the librarians (n = 71, 93%) believed that inadequate funding was a significant barrier to the implementation of digital transformation in their libraries. Moreover, more than half felt that failure to understand their changing roles (n = 48, 63.2%), lack of awareness of digital technologies (n = 47, 61.8%) and limited staff (n = 47, 61.8%) affected digital transformation. Furthermore, the absence of relevant policies or frameworks (n = 44, 57.9%), insufficient ICT infrastructure (n = 42, 55.3%), limited management support (n = 39, 51.3%), technophobia (n = 39, 51.3%), inadequate ICT skills (n = 37, 48.7%) and lack of collaboration (n = 27, 35.5%) were indicated as barriers.
Figure 5 represents the barriers to digital transformation that were mentioned by the library directors during the individual interviews.
The interviewed library directors shared several barriers that had hindered digital transformation in their libraries and some are mentioned below:
[…] COVID period, that is where we needed to use the technologies even the more but our challenges were […] you needed data to communicate, to hold meetings to disseminate information, you needed to have the gadgets, we did not at the beginning, most of us did not have laptops […] yet we needed to continue working from home and we needed to keep the library open electronically. (UL C; public university)
[…] even our bandwidth, the internet we have is not that fast. It used to be fast but of course as the number of users increase you expect that […] we tried to see that they put wireless connection for the people in the library and around the library, but the connection still has a challenge. (UL D; public university)
[…] we are still populating our DSpace, we have not even gone to the hard copies of the dissertations because that would mean we need scanners. This one cannot do much, it is small. (UL D; public university)
[…] you schedule the training, students are there, and the power decides to go, and the server decides to act up. University wide servers let us down, for example we lost 600 articles in IR because of traffic, when the server hits, it gets messed up and then later crashes. So, we have those challenges at the university level. (UL F; private university)
Then we had challenges with MyLoft, it also decided to upgrade to version 9. If a student has a phone that is less than 9 then they can’t upload MyLoft […] they can’t access learning resources, so they complain. (UL F; private university)
Some people don’t want change because if I look at now this era of COVID, the way we are executing our duties has actually changed […] things have changed, they are not interested. And now the way we are serving our users […] they are at home, you must serve them from there. (UL E; private university)
[…] we are dull people […] when I came here, we didn’t have a Twitter handle, so I created one, and I found a not very nice Facebook page, and I am like can we identify somebody […] even the ones who offered to do, cannot. So, I think we are not ready, we are not that agile and packaging information is a challenge especially in term of social media. I think we don’t know how to harness these technologies to use them in this space which is academic. (UL B; public university)
Yes, I am saying skills is another challenge because sometimes you find that some people have phobia for the technology. (UL E; private university)
Discussion
Implemented digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda
To maintain their relevance in institutions and meet their users’ ever-changing and sophisticated needs, academic libraries must adopt new technologies or perform continuous updates (Bawack, 2019; Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016; Otike and Barát, 2021; Shonhe and Jain, 2017). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the status of digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda and clarify the extent to which these libraries had implemented digital transformation. Librarians were asked to indicate which technologies they had implemented from a total of 13 technology trends. The findings showed that the majority had implemented six to 10 technology trends, which indicated that the selected university libraries in Uganda had achieved an average level of digital transformation implementation. Furthermore, the findings showed that public university libraries had implemented the most (n = 50, 98%) digital transformation technologies compared with private university libraries (n = 21, 84.0%). A reason for this could be the availability of a fostering environment with funds and infrastructure to enhance the implementation of digital transformation.
To further investigate how the selected university libraries in Uganda had increased value and remained relevant in this technological era, this study identified which digital transformation technologies had been implemented in these libraries. The findings showed that e-resources had been implemented almost in all university libraries (n = 74, 97.4%), followed by IRs (n = 68, 89.5%), remote access (n = 63, 82.9%), OPACs (n = 63, 82.9%), social media (n = 49, 64.5%) and ILMS (n = 49, 64.5%). These findings were not surprising, especially as the interviewed library directors noted that they had tried to implement common trends. Several previous studies had reported the availability of e-resources (Edem and Egbe, 2016; Mawere and Sai, 2018; Mwantimwa and Elia, 2017; Tella et al., 2018), IRs (Di Salvo et al., 2015; Kakai et al., 2018; Namaganda, 2017; Shajitha and Majeed, 2018), remote access (Blansit, 2007; De Sarkar, 2015), social media (Akeriwa et al., 2015; Okoroma, 2018; Trucks, 2019) and ILMS (Komolafe-Opadeji and Ojo, 2019) in university libraries.
Interestingly, none of the libraries had implemented 4IR technologies. This could be because of a lack of resources in terms of skilled human resources and finances in these libraries. This supported various studies that reported that most African university libraries were lagging in the implementation of 4IR technologies, which was attributed to several challenges such as limited resources, cost of technologies and staff training (Akeriwa et al., 2015; Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016; Odeyemi, 2019; Tella et al., 2020). This means that these university libraries may be missing out on the opportunities associated with 4IR technologies. Odeyemi (2019) noted that information discovery in academic libraries that had implemented 4IR tools had become more entertaining, intuitive and accessible. Therefore, Cooke (2012) emphasized the need for librarians to be savvy by keeping abreast of the newest developments within the profession.
Facilitators of digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda
Interestingly, many participants indicated that they had been able to implement digital transformation in their libraries because of the trained librarians. This showed that CPD had a role to play in the implementation of digital transformation in university libraries. Staff who had been trained and acquired skills were able to transform their libraries. Bowen-Chang and Hosein (2019) noted that librarians need to update their skills and abilities to succeed in technologically advanced academic settings. Therefore, librarians must pursue CPD in today’s technologically advanced environment. Participating in staff development activities will help librarians expand their capabilities to deal with the changing technology in universities (Cobblah and Van der Walt, 2017).
Barriers hindering digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda
Most participating librarians indicated that inadequate funding hindered digital transformation in their libraries, which suggested that the surveyed university libraries in Uganda were not adequately funded. The issue of limited funding in university libraries has also been reported in several previous studies, which indicated that lack of funding hindered the implementation of IRs (Buwule and Mutula, 2019; Dlamini and Snyman, 2017; Kodua-Ntim and Fombad, 2020; Owusu-Ansah, 2020), ILMS (Aregbesola et al., 2019; Buwule and Ponelis, 2017; Komolafe-Opadeji and Ojo, 2019), IoT (Wójcik, 2016) and 4IR technologies (Acheampong and Dei, 2020). The ongoing financial difficulties faced by libraries have hampered their ability to acquire technological and information resources (Jain and Akakandelwa, 2016). The budgetary constraints in several university libraries rendered them incapable of satisfying library users’ needs in this technologically driven environment (Chisita and Chiparausha, 2019).
Another key finding was librarians’ failure to understand their changing roles hindered digital transformation in their libraries. This could be because librarians were not interested or had not been fully oriented to their new roles. They had not gained the skills and knowledge to be able to understand or effectively perform these roles. Mwaniki (2018) specified that during this period of rapid change, academic librarians must strengthen their educational and professional skills to be able to anticipate and meet their users’ needs. The rapid advancement in technology caused a shift in the entire paradigm of the library profession and library services (Ashiq et al., 2021). In addition, it has had a significant impact on how library users behave, and set expectations and preferences (Madge and Robu, 2019).
Another barrier hindering digital transformation in Uganda university libraries was the lack of awareness of digital technologies. Librarians lacked the knowledge of which technology to implement in their libraries; otherwise, how can they implement something they did not know exists? Furthermore, other studies reported a lack of awareness hindered the implementation of digital transformation technologies such as RDM (Cox, 2019; Tang and Hu, 2019), LMS (Aregbesola et al., 2019; Buwule and Ponelis, 2017; Olatunji et al., 2020) and cloud computing (Meher and Maharana, 2015).
Limited staff was also cited as a reason why librarians were not implementing digital transformation in their libraries. It could be that the available staff were already overwhelmed with other library activities, and could not take on anymore more roles, as indicated by some of the interviewed library directors when explaining the low uptake of social media in their libraries. Other barriers to digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda included the absence of relevant policies or frameworks, insufficient ICT infrastructure, limited management support, technophobia, inadequate ICT skills and lack of collaboration. However, among these barriers, the issue of insufficient ICT infrastructure was strongly echoed by the interviewed library directors as a serious factor hindering digital transformation in their libraries. This finding resonated with findings from other studies (as indicated in Table 3) conducted on the African continent that reported poor ICT infrastructure hindered librarians in sub-Saharan Africa in implementing technologies (Aiyebelehin, 2018; Bawack and Nkolo, 2018; Ukachi and Onuoha, 2013).
Conclusion and recommendations
The selected university libraries in Uganda had tried to implement digital transformation, except for 4IR technologies thus missing out on the opportunities offered by the 4IR. This may be attributable to a shortage of resources, including a lack of skills and funding. Therefore, this study concluded that digital transformation within the selected university libraries in Uganda had been averagely implemented. This fills a literature gap on how university libraries in Uganda had implemented digital transformation. Furthermore, this study concluded that various barriers were hindering the implementation of digital transformation in the selected university libraries in Uganda. The most highly ranked barrier was the lack of digital skills among librarians, which demonstrated that the acquisition of CPD skills has an important role to play in achieving digital transformation in university libraries.
The study recommends building the capacity of librarians. This can be achieved by using various CPD opportunities for librarians to gain the skills and competencies required to implement these technologies. The library management should also provide support in the form of funds, policies and human resources to implement such digital transformation. This study further recommends that libraries should benchmark against other university libraries to see what they have and decide what they can implement in their libraries.
Limitation of the study
The criteria for choosing universities were those that have been around for at least 10 years. The reason for this was that it was assumed that these universities would have well-established staff development programmes and procedures as well as be likely to have incorporated technology into their services, including libraries. The study’s limitations stem from the fact that this criterion for selection might not apply to all Ugandan university libraries, particularly those that are less than 10 years old and may not have been well represented in the current study.
Further studies
There is a need to study the information-seeking behaviour of patrons in Ugandan university libraries. This information will help them to understand the needs of their clients and which technology to implement to satisfy these needs.
The authors would like to show their gratitude to Mary Namuguzi, Shamim Namukasa, and Joseph Atukwase for their contribution towards this study.
Funding: No funds of any kind were provided for the study.
Credit author statement.
Sarah Nakaziba: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing original draft.
Patrick Ngulube: Supervision, conceptualization, reviewing and editing.
Competing interests: The authors affirm that no financial or commercial relationship might be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Conceptual framework
Digital transformation in university libraries*
Facilitators of digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda
Barriers hindering digital transformation* (N = 76)
Barriers hindering digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda
Digital transformation in university libraries in Uganda (N = 76)
| Extent | Public universities | Private universities | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makerere | Kyambogo | MUST | Ndejje | IUIU | UMU | Public n (%) | Private n (%) | Total | |
| High | 13 (46.4) | 10 (58.8) | 2 (33.3) | 3 (42.9) | 3 (21.4) | 3 (75.0) | 25 (49.0) | 9 (36.0) | 34 (44.7) |
| Average | 15 (53.6) | 7 (41.2) | 3 (50.0) | 3 (42.9) | 8 (57.1) | 1 (25.0) | 25 (49.0) | 12 (48.0) | 37 (48.7) |
| Low | – | – | 1 (16.7) | 1 (14.3) | 3 (21.4) | – | 1 (2.0) | 4 (16.0) | 5 (6.6) |
Notes:MUST = Mbarara University of Science and Technology; IUIU = Islamic University in Uganda; UMU = Uganda Martyrs University
Source: Table by authors
Facilitators of digital transformation (N = 76)
| Facilitators | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Trained/skilled librarians | 63 (83) |
| Internet connectivity | 62 (82) |
| Knowledge about technology | 55 (73) |
| Automated systems | 54 (72) |
| Management support | 52 (68) |
| Availability of mobile devices | 51 (67) |
| Adequate funding | 45 (59) |
| Low implementation cost | 42 (55) |
| Availability of relevant policies | 41 (54) |
| Adequate advocacy | 39 (52) |
| Adequate staffing | 38 (51) |
Note:*Multiple responses were possible
Source: Table by authors
Studies reporting barriers to digital transformation
| Study/source/reference | Barriers to digital transformation |
|---|---|
| Kodua-Ntim and Fombad (2020) | Institutional repositories |
| Baro et al. (2013); Quadri and Idowu (2016); Abok and Kwanya (2016) | Web 2.0 technologies |
| Echedom and Okuonghae (2021) | Artificial intelligence |
| Achugbue (2018); Meher and Maharana (2015) | Cloud-based technologies |
| Alikoba et al. (2019); Aregbesola et al. (2019); Buwule and Ponelis (2017); Komolafe-Opadeji and Ojo (2019); Olatunji et al. (2020); Ponelis and Adoma (2018); Namuleme and Namaganda (2015) | Integrated library management system |
Source: Table by authors
© Emerald Publishing Limited.