2 IJHRMRAPR 20192

International Journal of Human Resource
Management and Research (IJHRMR)

ISSN (P): 2249-6874; ISSN (E): 2249-7986
Vol. 9, Issue 2, Apr 2019,11-22
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

OUTREACH TECHNIQUES IN THE PROMOTION OF LIBRARY
INFORMATION SERVICES AND RESOURCES: A STUDY
AMONG LIS PROFESSIONALS
S. RAVI

Dean, School of Communication, Professor and Head, Department of Library and Information Science,

Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT

Outreach method, is a library public service program, initiated and designed to meet the information needs of
an unserved or inadequately served target group, such as the institutionalized, senior citizens, or nonusers. Outreach in
libraries is not a newly built concept, but it extends roots to more than 40 years. There exist nine principles and three
stages of Outreach service. The concept of outreach method adopted by library and information science professionals
working in 76 engineering institutions of eight districts was studied based on four outreach concepts such as Print, Non¬
print, Technology and Social media.

KEYWORDS: Outreach Techniques, Promoting LIS Services and Resources. Print Media, Non-Print Media,
Technology Media & Social Media

TRANS

STELLAR

•Journal Publications • Research Consultancy

Received: Dec 28, 2018; Accepted: Jan 18, 2019; Published: Feb 04, 2019; Paper Id.: IJHRMRAPR20192

INTRODUCTION

The word "outreach" is used to describe a wide range of activities, from actual delivery of services to
dissemination of information. Boyce and Boyce (1995), point out that while the term outreach is used extensively
in library literature from the mid-sixties, a specific definition is not readily offered. Outreach is often used
interchangeably with synonyms such as extension and the phrases “service to the disadvantaged” or “unsaved,
“and “community “or “inner-city service.” As a tool to help expand access to information services, practices or
products, outreach are most often designed to accomplish directly deliver information services; educate or inform
the target population, increasing their knowledge and/or skills; educate or inform people who interact with the
target population; establish beneficial connections between people and/or organizations.

The ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science definition for “outreach program” is a library
public service program initiated and designed to meet the information needs of an unserved or inadequately served
target group, such as the institutionalized, senior citizens, or nonusers. Such programs may emphasize an
aggressive publicity effort or extended services to the target group.

Outreach Marketing

Outreach marketing is...looking at how humans learn about new things (from other people) and weaving
this idea into all communication strategies. A philosophy focused on human to human connection a connection
with your consumers instead of marketing at them.

www.tjprc.ors

editor@tjprc. org

Original Article

12

S. Ravi

Outreach goes hand in hand with library marketing, promotions, public relations, special events, social
responsibility, user education, academic collaboration, etc. The Association of Library Communications & Outreach
Professionals (ALCOP) located in New Jersey, USA is a body which ties marketing, public relations, special events,
fundraising, outreach, and program development professionals for public and academic libraries. According to the vision
statement of ALCOP “public relations, community outreach and marketing professionals of libraries today, have to strive
to remain competitive by using innovative tools for effective marketing”

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDY

Outreach method was undertaken in addition to or in place of ordinary library services with the intention of
reaching a disadvantaged population. (Lipsman,1972). Outreach method is far “reaching out to non-traditional library
users, extending beyond borders of a physical library and promoting under-utilized or new library resources”. A survey
conducted to compare outreach initiatives by academic librarians in the US has revealed that librarians have offered a
significant impact on their learning communities by their outreach activities. (Dennis,2012).

Increases in circulation, account registrations and e-book access became apparent after the creation of displays,
physical signs and use of the library Web site to promote resources (Jones, McCandless, Kiblinger, Giles and McCabe,
2011; McGeachin and Ramirez, 2005).

Modern advanced technology has a direct influence on many library outreach activities. The study, to bridge
technology and training gaps (Adeyemon, 2009), use of multimedia technologies used to deliver variety services (Fabian,
D’aniello, Tysick and Morin, 2003), Facebook to build relationship among users (Ayu and Abrizah 2011) were the few
outreach activities.

According to Fisher and Pride (2006); Mathews (2009); and Webreck Alman (2007), promotional tools that can
be used by academic libraries to promote their services and resources include: digital media, such as the library's Website,
e-mail lists, blogs and podcasts; print materials, such as posters, handouts and giveaways; events such as orientation tours
and workshops; and other tools such as library publications, contests, brochures, direct mail, Web 2.0 applications and
displays

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were

• To know whether the outreach methods were used for promoting library information sources and services.

• To identify the popular methods of outreach methods.

• To make a SWOT analysis for Outreach method of promoting LIS services.

HYPOTHESES

Based on the objectives the following hypotheses were formulated.

• The outreach methods were used by the Library and Information Science professionals in promoting the library

information sources and services.

• There exist popular outreach methods for promoting the LIS sources and services.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092

NAAS Rating: 3.38

Outreach Techniques in the Promotion of Library Information
Services and Resources: A Study among LIS Professionals

13

• There exist strength and weakness in using library and information services.

DATA COLLECTION

The questionnaires were distributed to the Library and Information Science professionals of 76 engineering
institutions. 210 questionnaires were distributed. Out of 210 distributed 157 responded. The response rate works out to
74.76%.

Demographic Details

The demographic details of the respondents were shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Details

Outreach Method

The concept of outreach method among library and information science professionals working in engineering
institutions of eight districts were studied based on four outreach concepts such as Print, Non-print, Technology and Social
media. The same is shown below:

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc. org

14

S. Ravi

Print Non print

Outr

each

techt

liqUe J

Technology I Social media

Figure 2

A total of 37 variables for these four components was taken up for the study. Each component has no. of
variables. The components and the no. of variables are shown in Tables 2

Table 2: Components and Variables

S. No.

Outreach Method

No. of Variables

Variables

1

Print

9

Advertisements

Announcements

Booklets

Brochures

Catalogues

Leaflets

Library tours
Newsletters
Published guides

2

Non Print

9

Advertising

Classroom

Displays

Exhibits or
Giveaways
Instruction

Print advertising
Training sessions
Workshops

3

Technology

8

Direct mail

E-mails

Events

Face-to-face

Library Website
Online

Phone

Website

4

Social media

11

SMS service

Ask ©librarian
Library blog

Twitter

Flickr

My space

Wikis

You tube

Apps

Linkedln

Instagram

Total

37

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092

NAAS Rating: 3.38

Outreach Techniques in the Promotion of Library Information
Services and Resources: A Study among LIS Professionals

Reliability Test

15

Reliability is concerned with the consistency of a variable. There are two identifiable aspects of this issue:
external and internal reliability. Nowadays, the most common method of estimating internal reliability is Cronbach alpha
(a). The formula used for internal reliability is

a =

K

K - 1

A commonly accepted rules for describing internal consistency using Cronbach alpha (Cronbach, Lee and
Shavelson 2004) are a>0.9 (Excellent), 0.9>a> 0.8 (Good), 0.8>a>0.7 (Acceptable), 0.7>a>0.6 (Questionable), 0.6>a>0.5
(Poor) and 0.5>a (Unacceptable).

In order to identify the reliability of the variables, Cronbach alpha (a) analysis has been carried out for 37
variables on outreach concept among LIS professionals of select districts of Tamil Nadu. The Alpha value for the same are
calculated and shown in Table 3, which indicates that all the variables are acceptable for further studies.

Table 3: Reliability Test - Cronbach Alpha value

S. No.

Attitude

No. of variables

Alpha Value

1

Print

9

0.9371

2

Non Print

9

0.7316

3

Technology

8

0.7318

4

Social media

11

0.7367

37

0.8531

All the 37 variables alpha value works out to 0.8531. The alpha value for the each four components ranges
between 0.7505 and 0.8387. The alpha value is >0.7 which indicates that all the variables are acceptable.

Print Method

The views on the outreach print method has been analysed based on nine variables such as advertisements;
announcements; Booklets; Brochures; Catalogues; Leaflets; Library tours; Newsletters and Published guides in a five point
scale such as Not at all; ineffective; No Opinion; Somewhat effective and Effective. The mean and standard deviation
calculated based on respondent's opinion were calculated. The ranks were assigned based on mean and standard deviation.
The response, mean, standard deviation and rank were shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Print Method

S. No.

Description

Not at ail

Ineffective

No Opinion

Somewhat

Effective

Effective

Mean

Std.

Rank

1

Advertisements

0

.0%

16

10.2%

12

7.6%

56

35.7%

73

46.5%

4.18

.960

2

2

announcements

11

7.0%

10

6.4%

35

22.3%

19

12.1%

82

52.2%

3.96

1.280

5

3

Booklets

6

3.8%

12

7.6%

16

10.2%

59

37.6%

64

40.8%

4.04

1.079

3

4

Brochures

12

7.6%

11

7.0%

37

23.6%

39

24.8%

58

36.9%

3.76

1.236

9

5

Catalogues

6

3.8%

6

3.8%

43

27.4%

36

22.9%

66

42.0%

3.96

1.094

4

6

Leaflets

1

.6%

20

12.7%

30

19.1%

44

28.0%

62

39.5%

3.93

1.075

6

7

Library tours

11

7.0%

17

10.8%

17

10.8%

50

31.8%

62

39.5%

3.86

1.248

8

8

Newsletters

6

3.8%

6

3.8%

40

25.5%

54

34.4%

51

32.5%

3.88

1.034

7

9

Published guides

6

3.8%

1

.6%

12

7.6%

39

24.8%

99

63.1%

4.43

.949

1

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc. org

16

S. Ravi

All the mean value of the nine print method variables ranges between 3.76 and 4.43 which indicate that they are
effective. The standard deviation ranges between 0.949 and 1.280 which indicates that there has been no deviation on
opinion.

The first preference was given for “Published Guides”. It is followed by “Advertisement” and “Booklets”. The
least preference was indicated to “Brochures” and “Library tours”.

The study has been further extended to the district. The mean and standard deviation were calculated based on the
response and same has been shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Print Method Vs District - Mean and Standard Deviation Report

Ariyalur

Cuddalore

Nagapattinam

Perambalur

Thanjavur

Tiruvannamalai

Tiruvarur

Villuj

>uram

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Advertisements

4.50

.707

3.94

1.124

4.06

.998

4.25

1.065

4.20

.913

4.13

.900

4.33

1.211

4.23

.961

announcements

4.00

.943

3.81

1.559

4.06

1.389

3.88

1.408

3.96

1.207

3.92

1.213

4.33

1.633

3.98

1.267

Booklets

4.40

.699

3.75

1.238

3.88

1.258

4.13

1.088

4.12

.927

4.21

.833

3.67

1.751

4.00

1.141

Brochures

3.90

1.101

3.50

1.317

3.63

1.360

3.88

1.258

3.80

1.155

3.92

1.018

3.50

1.975

3.77

1.292

Catalogues

4.10

.876

3.75

1.238

3.88

1.258

4.00

1.155

4.04

.978

4.00

.978

4.17

1.602

3.91

1.117

Leaflets

4.10

1.101

3.69

1.078

3.87

1.025

3.88

1.204

3.88

1.054

3.83

1.049

4.33

1.211

4.05

1.099

Library tours

3.90

1.197

3.69

1.352

3.94

1.181

3.75

1.483

3.92

1.187

3.88

1.191

4.17

1.602

3.84

1.256

Newsletters

4.10

.876

3.75

1.183

3.81

1.167

3.94

1.124

3.92

.862

3.92

.830

3.83

1.602

3.84

1.098

Published guides

4.70

.483

4.25

1.125

4.31

1.138

4.44

1.031

4.60

.645

4.58

.654

4.17

1.602

4.32

1.052

The mean value of all the nine print method variables, irrespective of region, ranges between 3.50 and 4.70 which
indicate that theyare “somewhat effective” and “effective”. Similarly the standard deviation ranges between 0.483 and
1.976 in a five point scale which indicates there was no much deviation in the respondent’s opinion. The preferences were
identical irrespective of districts as like that of overall opinion.

Non-Print Method

The views on outreach non-print method has been analysed based on nine variables such as Advertising;
Classroom; Displays; Exhibits; Giveaways; instruction; Print advertising; Training sessions and Workshops in a five point
scale such as Not at all; ineffective; No Opinion; Somewhat effective and Effective. The mean and standard deviation
calculated based on respondent’s opinion were calculated. The ranks were assigned based on mean and standard deviation.
The response, mean, standard deviation and rank were shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Non Print Method

S.No.

Description

Not at All

Ineffective

O

No

pinion

Somewhat

Effective

Effective

Mean

Std.

Rank

1

Advertising

10

6.4%

19

12.1%

19

12.1%

53

33.8%

56

35.7%

3.80

1.227

9

2

Classroom

11

7.0%

4

2.5%

31

19.7%

39

24.8%

72

45.9%

4.00

1.182

5

3

Displays

4

2.5%

10

6.4%

26

16.6%

42

26.8%

75

47.8%

4.11

1.060

2

4

Exhibits

11

7.0%

5

3.2%

15

9.6%

57

36.3%

69

43.9%

4.07

1.139

4

5

Giveaways

12

7.6%

11

7.0%

28

17.8%

47

29.9%

59

37.6%

3.83

1.226

8

6

Instruction

10

6.4%

4

2.5%

32

20.4%

28

17.8%

83

52.9%

4.08

1.187

3

7

Print advertising

8

5.1%

12

7.6%

22

14.0%

47

29.9%

68

43.3%

3.99

1.160

6

8

Training sessions

10

6.4%

9

5.7%

24

15.3%

54

34.4%

60

38.2%

3.92

1.158

7

9

Workshops

7

4.5%

4

2.5%

23

14.6%

46

29.3%

77

49.0%

4.16

1.059

1

All the mean value of the nine non-print method variables ranges between 3.80 and 4.16 which indicate that they
somewhat effective. The standard deviation ranges between 1.059 and 1.227 which indicates that there has been no
deviation on opinion.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092

NAAS Rating: 3.38

Outreach Techniques in the Promotion of Library Information
Services and Resources: A Study among LIS Professionals

17

The first preference was given for “Workshops”. It is followed by “Displays” and “Instructions”. The least
preference was indicated to “Giveaways” and “Advertising”.

The study has been further extended to the district. The mean and standard deviation were calculated based on the
response and the same has been shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Non Print Method Vs District - Mean and Standard Deviation

Ariyalur

Cuddalore

Nagapattinam

Perantbalur

Than

avur

Tiruvannamalai

Tiruvarur

Yillupu ram

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Advertising

3.90

1.197

3.69

1.352

3.94

1.181

3.63

1.455

3.76

1.128

3.75

1.152

4.17

1.602

3.84

1.238

Classroom

4.20

1.317

3.75

1.438

3.88

1.204

4.13

1.147

4.00

1.384

4.21

.977

3.83

.983

3.95

1.120

Displays

4.30

.949

4.19

.981

3.94

.929

4.19

.911

4.12

1.092

4.21

1.103

3.83

.753

4.05

1.238

Exhibits

4.20

1.229

4.44

1.094

4.00

1.033

4.19

1.047

4.08

1.320

3.92

1.248

4.00

.632

3.98

1.131

Giveaways

4.00

1.247

3.63

1.360

3.63

1.204

3.94

1.181

3.68

1.406

3.92

1.213

3.67

1.033

3.95

1.180

Instruction

4.40

1.265

3.88

1.204

4.06

1.181

4.38

1.147

4.04

1.369

4.13

1.076

4.17

.983

3.98

1.210

Print Advertising

3.90

1.197

3.94

.929

3.88

1.455

4.00

1.155

4.00

1.190

4.50

.834

3.33

1.633

3.86

1.173

Training Sessions

4.00

.667

4.00

1.033

3.88

1.204

3.81

1.223

3.88

1.013

3.96

1.233

4.33

.816

3.89

1.368

Workshops

4.50

.707

3.63

1.204

4.31

1.138

4.31

1.138

4.44

.961

3.96

1.233

4.83

.408

4.02

.952

All the mean value of the nine print method variables, irrespective of region, ranges between 3.33 and 4.83 which
indicate that they are “somewhat effective”. Similarly the standard deviation ranges between 0.408 and 1.633 in a five
point scale which indicates there was no much deviation in the respondent’s opinion. The preferences were identical
irrespective of districts as like that of overall opinion.

Technology Method

The views on the outreach Technology method has been analysed based on eight variables such as Direct mail; E-
mails; events; Face-to-face; Library Website; Online; Phone and Websitein a five point scale such as Not at all; ineffective;
No Opinion; Somewhat effective and Effective. The mean and standard deviation calculated based on respondent opinion
were calculated. The ranks were assigned based on mean and standard deviation. The response, mean, standard deviation
and rank were shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Technology Method

S.No.

Description

Not at All

Ineffective

No Opinion

Somewhat

Effective

Effective

Mean

Std.

Rank

1

Direct mail

9

5.7%

9

5.7%

22

14.0%

50

31.8%

67

42.7%

4.00

1.149

6

2

E-mails

9

5.7%

13

8.3%

21

13.4%

55

35.0%

59

37.6%

3.90

1.165

8

3

Events

7

4.5%

10

6.4%

26

16.6%

57

36.3%

57

36.3%

3.94

1.090

7

4

Face-to-face

10

6.4%

2

1.3%

23

14.6%

48

30.6%

74

47.1%

4.11

1.113

1

5

Library Website

9

5.7%

9

5.7%

21

13.4%

50

31.8%

68

43.3%

4.01

1.149

5

6

Online

7

4.5%

11

7.0%

19

12.1%

56

35.7%

64

40.8%

4.01

1.104

4

7

Phone

5

3.2%

9

5.7%

26

16.6%

55

35.0%

62

39.5%

4.02

1.041

3

8

Website

7

4.5%

6

3.8%

25

15.9%

47

29.9%

72

45.9%

4.09

1.082

2

All the mean value of the eight technology method variables ranges between 3.90 and 4.11 which indicate that
they are somewhat effective. The standard deviation ranges between 1.090 and 1.165 which indicates that there has been
no deviation on opinion.

The first preference was given for “Face-to-face”. It is followed by “Website” and “Phone”. The least preference
was indicated to “E-mails” and “Events”.

The study has been further extended to the district. The mean and standard deviation were calculated based on the
response and the same has been shown in Table 9.

www.tjprc.ors

editor@tjprc. org

18

S. Ravi

Table 9: Technology Method Vs District - Mean and Standard Deviation

Ariyalur

Cuddalore

Nagapattinam

Perambalur

Than

avur

Tiruvannamalai

Tiruvarur

Villup

uram

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Direct mail

4.00

.943

4.06

1.063

3.81

1.276

3.63

1.360

3.76

1.234

4.25

.847

3.50

1.378

4.25

1.144

E-mails

4.00

1.247

4.00

1.033

3.75

1.390

4.06

1.237

4.00

1.190

4.12

1.116

3.83

1.169

3.68

1.137

events

4.10

.738

4.12

1.360

3.88

1.204

3.75

1.125

3.80

1.225

4.04

.955

4.00

.632

3.93

1.087

Face-to-face

4.70

.483

3.56

1.209

4.38

1.147

4.25

1.125

4.32

1.180

4.21

.977

4.67

.516

3.77

1.138

Library Website

3.60

1.265

4.06

1.237

3.88

1.147

3.75

1.291

3.72

1.370

4.29

.859

3.33

1.366

4.34

.939

Online

4.20

.789

4.13

1.088

4.25

1.065

3.56

1.548

4.04

1.172

4.12

.900

4.00

1.265

3.93

1.065

Phone

4.80

.422

4.13

.957

3.75

1.183

4.00

1.211

3.92

1.077

4.04

.751

4.00

1.549

3.95

1.077

Website

3.50

1.269

3.88

1.310

4.25

1.125

4.38

1.147

4.44

.961

4.17

.963

4.17

1.602

3.89

.920

All the mean value of the eight technology method variables, irrespective of region, ranges between 3.33 and 4.80
which indicate that theyare “somewhat effective”. Similarly the standard deviation ranges between 0.422 and 1.602 in a
five point scale which indicates there was no much deviation in the respondent’s opinion. The preferences were identical
irrespective of districts as like that of overall opinion.

Social Media Method

The views on the outreach Social Media method has been analysed based on eleven variables such as SMS
service; Ask@librarian; Library blog; Twitter; Flickr; My space; Wikis; YouTube; Apps; Linkedln and Instagram in a five
point scale such as Not at all; ineffective; No Opinion; Somewhat effective and Effective. The mean and standard deviation
calculated based on respondent’s opinion were calculated. The ranks were assigned based on mean and standard deviation.
The response, mean, standard deviation and rank were shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Social Media Method

S.No.

Description

Not at All

Ineffective

No Opinion

Somewhat

Effective

Effective

Mean

Std.

Rank

1

SMS sendee

12

7.6%

8

5.1%

19

12.1%

49

31.2%

69

43.9%

3.99

1.209

4

2

Ask(Slibraiian

13

8.3%

11

7.0%

18

11.5%

54

34.4%

61

38.9%

3.89

1.235

11

3

Library blog

9

5.7%

11

7.0%

23

14.6%

51

32.5%

63

40.1%

3.94

1.162

6

4

Twitter

9

5.7%

9

5.7%

25

15.9%

41

26.1%

73

46.5%

4.02

1.174

3

5

Flickr

11

7.0%

9

5.7%

28

17.8%

47

29.9%

62

39.5%

3.89

1.196

10

6

My space

4

2.5%

15

9.6%

23

14.6%

45

28.7%

70

44.6%

4.03

1.100

2

7

Wikis

7

4.5%

11

7.0%

35

22.3%

36

22.9%

68

43.3%

3.94

1.158

5

8

Youtube

6

3.8%

11

7.0%

23

14.6%

48

30.6%

69

43.9%

4.04

1.103

1

9

apps

8

5.1%

10

6.4%

34

21.7%

38

24.2%

67

42.7%

3.93

1.166

8

10

Linkedin

9

5.7%

9

5.7%

34

21.7%

40

25.5%

65

41.4%

3.91

1.173

9

11

Instagram

11

7.0%

9

5.7%

26

16.6%

44

28.0%

67

42.7%

3.94

1.207

7

All the mean value of the elevensocial media method variables ranges between 3.91 and 4.04 which indicate that
they somewhat effective. The standard deviation ranges between 1.100 and 1.235 which indicates that there has been no
deviation on opinion.

The first preference was given for “You tube”. It is followed by “My space” and “Twitter”. The least preference
was indicated to “Ask@librarian” and “Flickr”.

The study has been further extended to the district. The mean and standard deviation were calculated based on the
response and the same has been shown in Table 11.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092

NAAS Rating: 3.38

Outreach Techniques in the Promotion of Library Information
Services and Resources: A Study among LIS Professionals

19

Table 11: Social Media Method Vs District - Mean and Standard Deviation

Ariyalur

Cuddalore

Nagapattinam

Perainbalur

Than

avur

Tiruvannamalai

Tiruvarur

Yillupurain

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

SMS service

3.60

1.265

4.13

1.204

3.75

1.390

3.94

.998

3.64

1.350

4.00

1.251

3.67

1.506

4.36

1.014

Ask(®fibrarian

3.90

1.287

3.88

1.310

3.94

1.289

3.94

1.436

3.96

1.207

3.67

1.404

4.00

1.095

3.91

1.117

Library blog

4.50

.972

3.63

1.360

3.87

1.204

3.69

1.401

3.92

1.222

3.75

1.225

3.83

.753

4.18

.971

Twitter

3.80

.919

3.69

1.014

4.31

1.138

4.00

1.366

4.32

1.180

3.83

1.373

4.67

.516

3.93

1.149

Flickr

4.20

1.229

3.94

1.124

4.00

.816

3.63

1.455

3.80

1.323

3.71

1.367

3.00

1.414

4.14

1.002

My space

3.90

1.524

3.69

1.078

4.19

.981

4.19

1.047

4.20

.957

3.67

1.373

4.50

.548

4.11

1.017

Wikis

3.70

1.418

3.69

1.250

4.13

.806

3.94

1.389

3.84

1.143

3.63

1.2-9

4.33

1.211

4.18

1.018

Youtube

3.60

1.713

3.81

.981

4.19

.750

4.06

1.181

4.08

1.038

4.04

1.233

4.67

.516

4.05

1.099

apps

4.20

1.317

3.88

.957

3.75

1.065

3.69

1.401

3.60

1.291

3.87

1.227

4.33

.816

4.20

1.069

Linkedin

3.60

1.350

3.94

1.181

4.13

1.147

3.88

1.258

3.92

1.038

4.08

1.060

4.33

1.211

3.75

1.278

Instagram

3.90

1.197

3.94

1.124

4.19

1.276

4.13

1.408

3.96

1.241

3.67

1.308

4.67

.516

3.82

1.147

All the mean value of the eleven social media method variables, irrespective of region, ranges between 3.00 and
4.67 which indicate that the value stands between “No opinion” and “Effective”. Similarly the standard deviation ranges
between 0.516 and 1.713 in a five point scale which indicates there was no much deviation in the respondents’ opinion.
The preferences were identical irrespective of districts as like that of overall opinion.

Table 12: SWOT Analyses of Outreach Techniques

Strengths

Opportunities

• One to one reference and research assistance at

• Changing technology - -Campus Portal; Library Web

the reference desk

page

• Subject expertise of appropriate resources and

• Orientation of Freshmen

ability to retrieve information

• Library users can be taught to find and useresources

• Helpful, friendly staff with service orientation

efficiently with online tutorials

• Authoritative and targeted information and

• “Price" of initially learning to use of resources pays off

resources available both in print and online

later

• Resources for cultural and intellectual

• Customer benefit by learning howto use sources and

enrichment

services

• Unique special collections with archives

• Changing pedagogy (embedded librarians)

• Library as a social commons study center with

• Collaborative initiatives

appropriate technology tools.

• New Social media tools

• Safe, user friendly' environment, both physical

• User need guidance in their research

and virtual via the Web page

• Liaison system in place of marketers

Weaknesses

Threats

• Library resources need training instruction to

• Google, Google Books, Google Scholar

use

• Web resources are easier and more convenient

• Retrieval of Library resources are not as easy as

• Bookstores, both physical and online (Amazon)

Web

• Millennial learning patterns (peer-to-peer, teaching; self-

• Information access is decentralized no need to

teaching behaviour)

come to library or librarians to use online

• “Good enough" sources and services

resources

• Students do not appreciate electronic resources as

• Can’t own all desired materials

superior research tools

• Lack of awareness use of many resources and

services

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc. org

20

S. Ravi

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that outreach methods were used by the Library and Information Science professionals in
promoting the library information sources and services. The popular outreach methods such as print. Non-print, technology
and social media methods, for promoting the Library and Information Sources and Services are increasing day by day.
Great outreach techniques are the way to maximise library services which needs hard work, dedication and conscientious
efforts. The study revealed that there exist cognizable strength and weakness in using Library and Information Services.

REFERENCES

1. Adeyemon, E. (2009). Integrating Digital Literacies into Outreach Sendees for Underserved Youth Populations. The Reference
Librarian, 50(1), 85-98. doi:10.1080/02763870802546423

2. ALA Glossary of Libraiy and Information Science The ALA glossary of library and information science. Chicago, IL:
American Library Association, 1983:160.Association

3. Avu, A. R. R., &Abrizah, A. (2011). Do you Facebook? Usage and applications of Facebookpage among academic libraries in
Malaysia. The International Information & Library Review, 43(4), 239-249. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2011.10.005

4. Boyce, J. I and Boyce, B (1995). Library Outreach Programs in Rural Areas. Library Trends,The Board of Trustees,
University of Illinois

5. Cronbach, Lee, J. and Shavelson, R.J. (2004). My Current Thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and Successor Procedures,
Educational and Psychological Measurement 64(3): 391-418

6. Dennis, M. (2012). Outreach initiatives in academic libraries, 2009-2011. Reference Sendees Review, 40(3), 368-383.
doi:10.1108/00907321211254643

7. Fabian, D’aniello, Tysick and Morin, 2003 Fabian, C. A., D’aniello, C., Tysick, C., & Morin, M. (2003). Multiple Models for
Libraiy Outreach Initiatives. The Reference Librarian, 39(82), 39-55. doi:10.1300/J120v39n82_04

8. Fisher, P. H., & Pride, M. M. (2006). Blueprint for your libraiy marketing plan: a guide to help you survive and thrive.
Chicago, IL: American Libraiy Association

9. Jones, D.Y., McCandless, M., Kiblinger, K., Giles, K., & McCabe, J. (2011). Simple marketing techniques and space planning
to increase circulation. Collection Management, 36(2), 107-118

10. Lipsman, C. K. (1972). The Disadvantaged and Libraiy Effectiveness. American Library

11. Martin, W. J. (1984). Outreach. Library Review, 33(1), 22-28. doi:10.1108/eb012761

12. Mathews (2009); Mathews, B. (2009). Marketing today's academic library: a bold new approach to communicating with
students. Chicago, IL: American Libraiy Association.

13. McGeachin, R. B., & Ramirez, D. (2005). Collaborating with students to develop an advertising campaign. College &
Undergraduate Libraries, 12(1/2), 139-152

14. Mohanraj.P and Gopalakrishnan.S (2017). Popularity and Preferences in Digital Shopping of Apparels: An Emphirical Study.
International Journal of Sales & Marketing Management Research and Development (IJSMMRD), 7 (3), Jim 2017, 1-12

15. Mostofci, S. M., & Hossain, M. U. (2014). Students’ Perceptions of Library Sendees in Academia of Bangladesh: A Case study
of Rajshahi University. International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts & Literature, 2(8), 81-90.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092

NAAS Rating: 3.38

Outreach Techniques in the Promotion of Library Information 21

Services and Resources: A Study among LIS Professionals

16. Paliwal, S. (2016). Comparative Bibliometric Study ofALIS and DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology:
2010-2014.

17. Pattabhiraman T, Gopalakrishnan S, and Gnanasekaran D (2014). Work Environment and Dynamic Capability: Empirical
Views of Library and Information Professionals. European Academic Research. 2(7), 9734-9751.

18. Phillips, N. K. (2011). Academic Library Use of Facebook: Building Relationships with Students. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 37(6), 512-522. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2011.07.008

19. Siva.P and Gopalakrishnan.S (2018). Attitude on Marketing Among Selected Central University Library and Information
Science Professionals: A Study. International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research (IJHRMR), 8 (6), Dec
2018, 177-188.

20. Vasan, Sunitha, Pujar, S K and Gopalakrishnan S (2017), Perception on unisex clothing among apparel designers: a study.
International Journal of Textile and Fashion Technology (IJTFT), 7 (2), 17-26.

21. Vijay, S. A., & Sekar, P. C. (2013). Work-related quality of life and its association with work productivity among the
employees of the Information Technology Enabled Service (ITES) Industries in India. International Journal of Human
Resources Management, 2(2), 17-26.

22. WebreckAlman, S. (2007). Crash course in marketing for libraries. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

www.tiprc.org

editor@tjprc. org