202 Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives Noa Aharony Noa Aharony is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Information Science at Bar-Ilan University; e-mail: noa.aharony@ biu.ac.il. © 2014 Noa Aharony, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC This study which is based on the Technological Acceptance Model (TAM), seeks to explore whether librarians and LIS students are familiar with the newest technological innovations and whether they are ready to accept them. The research was conducted in Israel during the first and second semesters of the 2012 academic year and considered two populations: librarians and LIS students. Researchers used two questionnaires to gather data: a personal details questionnaire, and a mobile technology questionnaire. On the whole, the current study supported the two core variables of the TAM (perceived ease of use and usefulness), as well as personal innovativeness that may predict librarians’ and students’ behavioral intention to use mobile services in the library. Mobile Technologies Introduction Mobile technologies are characterized by their small size and portability. Mobile devices include smartphones, tablets, and netbooks. They change the way people communicate since they provide information retrieval and other commu- nication options on a single device. An ever-increasing number of people world- wide access the Internet through their mobile devices daily to read and send e-mails, check the news and weather, do their banking, and access social networks such as Facebook or Twitter. Taking into consideration these mobile devices and their impact on our daily life, the ques- tion arises whether those in the Library and Information Science (LIS) community (both librarians and students) are ready to adopt mobile library services. Mobile Libraries Mobile libraries involve the delivery of library services through mobile devices. According to Speight, the increasing use of mobile devices in various aspects of life is causing libraries to consider adapt- ing these new technologies.1 Lippincott adds that libraries will have to offer users content and services suitable for these devices.2 Furthermore, Bridges, Rempel, and Griggs claim that it is the right time for libraries to develop fully mobile websites.3 Hahn adds that the mobile phenomenon enables libraries to create new services, as well as reach a greater number of people.4 Several studies have explored implementing mobile technolo- gies within public and academic libraries. Connolly, Cosgrave, and Krkoska report a project in which a mobile version of the library website was created, including an crl12-415 Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives 203 iPhone/iPod Touch application.5 Early re- sponses to this mobile platform were posi- tive. Kroski, in her report about libraries and mobile technologies, illustrates that there are different services that can be made available via a library’s mobile website.6 Paterson and Low recommend specific steps for academic libraries to develop their mobile sites. They suggest that mobile library users should be able to check due dates, renew and reserve items, search items in the library effectively, as well as navigate and locate items easily.7 Some studies reveal that mobile library users accessed the library service to find brief pieces of information, while others suggest that users reported they would like to search the library catalogue on their mobile device frequently.8 In another study, Walsh investigated students’ atti- tudes and use of mobile library services and found that they did not view text messaging from the library as intrusive. However, students noted that they would be interested in mobile library services only when they perceive a need or a benefit.9 In a further study, Seeholzer and Salem explored students’ perceptions of mobile academic library websites, which revealed that students expressed more interest in using their mobile devices to interact with library sources and services than expected. They wanted to use their smartphones for searching databases and the library catalog, as well as staying in- formed by the library staff.10 Barnhart and Pierce concluded that the combination of mobile librarians, mobile patrons, and mobile content provides an opportunity for the library to shift from having a fixed location to becoming ubiquitous.11 Problem Statement Because the use of mobile technologies is becoming increasingly popular, this study seeks to explore whether librar- ians and LIS students are familiar with the newest technological innovations and whether they are ready to accept them. Do they understand the power of mobile services in libraries? Are they ready to adopt new tools? Although various studies have focused on mobile services and mobile libraries, no one has so far integrated various sections of the LIS arena by focusing on librarians’ and LIS students’ perspectives toward mobile services. So it will be both intriguing and challenging to examine their perceptions of mobile services. The objectives of this study are to examine the following ques- tions: (a) if there are differences between librarians’ and LIS students’ perspectives toward mobile services; and (b) to what extent does the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) explain librarians and LIS students’ perspectives about mobile ser- vices. The research may contribute to the theoretical understanding of the variables that influence librarians’ and LIS students’ attitudes toward mobile services, and it may lead to further inquiry in this field. Literature Review Technological Acceptance Model (TAM) The current study is based on the Tech- nological Acceptance Model (TAM) that was introduced by Davis in 1989. The model was developed to investigate the factors that influence computer accep- tance by users. Its two key components are perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.12 Perceived usefulness is consid- ered the user’s assumption that using a specific application will increase his or her job performance within an organiza- tion. Bhattacherjee claims that a person is more likely to continue usage when it is perceived to be beneficial.13 Several re- searchers claim that perceived usefulness has a positive relationship with attitude and behavioral intention. 14 Perceived ease of use refers to the degree that the user expects that the new application will be free of effort.15 Davis et al. asserted that improvements in ease of use contribute to increased performance.16 Venkatesh and Davis added that greater ease of use causes improved performance as well as an increased perception of usefulness.17 Serenko noted that those who perceive a computer application to be easy to 204 College & Research Libraries March 2014 use will apply it more extensively and will consider it more useful for complet- ing certain tasks.18 Other studies have demonstrated that perceived ease of use affect intention, through the perception of increased usefulness.19 Davis et al.20 were the first to explore the model in the United States. Afterward, they used the TAM to investigate the variables that impact the use of word pro- cessing software among students, finding that students’ perceived usefulness has a direct impact on the decision to use or not to use the word processing software, and that perceived ease of use has less impact on the decision.21 Al-Gahtani studied the application of the TAM in England, sug- gesting that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, along with personal attitudes, were the variables that affected the acceptance of information technology (IT).22 Rose and Straub checked this model in the Arab world, finding it applicable in that region.23 Several studies focusing on the TAM were carried out in the library and sci- ence arena. Thong, Hong, and Tam,24 Vaidyanathan, Sabbaghi, and Bargel- lini,25 and Park et al.26 studied factors that may affect users’ acceptance of digital libraries. Thong, Hong, and Tam identi- fied three features for system interface, three organizational variables, and three personal differences that affect the per- ceived usefulness, the ease of use, and the decision to employ digital libraries.27 In another study, Vaidyanathan, Sabbaghi, and Bargellini found five systematic and individual factors that affected respon- dents’ perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of digital libraries.28 Recently, Park, Roman, Lee, and Chung, who ex- amined the TAM in developing countries, maintained that perceived ease of use of the library system had a significant effect on perceived usefulness, which led to behavioral intention to use digital librar- ies.29 In addition, external factors that af- fect perceived ease of use and usefulness are important components in designing and operating digital library systems in developing countries. Summing up previous research, Jung-Jung and Chang assert that previous studies have found that TAM has a relatively simple structure but comparable explanatory power for an individual’s adoption of information technology.30 Personal Innovativeness Another variable that may affect and predict respondents’ perspectives toward mobile services is personal innovative- ness. Rogers addresses “innovativeness” as the degree to which an individual, when compared to others, is early in adopting innovations.31 This trait can be subject to group influences, and, since it is more closely aligned to a behavior, it does not necessarily relate to personality characteristics.32 Agarwal and Prasad pro- posed that the personal innovativeness variable is associated with information technology and suggest that it be defined as the willingness to try out new infor- mation technology.33 People with higher personal innovativeness would therefore be more likely to take advantage of a new technology. According to their definition, it is a stable personality characteristic not influenced by situational considerations. Van Raaij and Schepers refer to personal innovativeness as the extent of open- ness to change.34 Lewis, Agarwal, and Sambamurthy add that this component is an important predictor of technology acceptance.35 Uray and Dedeoglu36 and Venkatraman37 suggest that innovative people look for mentally and sensory challenging experiences. Hypotheses Assuming that perceived ease of use, usefulness, personal innovativeness, and smartphone usage may predict librarians and LIS students’ behavioral intention to use mobile services, the underlying as- sumptions of this study are: 1. LIS students use mobile devices more than librarians (H1). 2. LIS students’ level of perceived ease of use of mobile technology Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives 205 is higher than librarians’ level of perceived ease of use of mobile technology (H2). 3. LIS students’ level of perceived mobile services usefulness is higher than librarians’ level of perceived mobile services (H3). 4. LIS students’ level of personal innovativeness is higher than librarians’ level of personal in- novativeness (H4). 5. LIS students’ level of behavioral intention to use mobile services in the library is higher than librarians’ level of behavioral intention (H5). 6. The higher the level of perceived ease of use respondents have, the higher their behavioral intention to use mobile services in the library (H6). 7. The higher respondents perceive mobile services usefulness, the higher their behavioral inten- tion to use mobile services in the library (H7). 8. The higher respondents’ personal innovativeness is, the higher their behavioral inten- tion to use mobile services in the library (H8). 9. Respondents who use smart- phones will have higher behav- ioral intentions to use mobile services in the library than respondents who do not use smartphones (H9). Methods Data Collection The research was conducted in Israel during the first and second semesters of the 2012 academic year and considered two populations: librarians and LIS stu- dents. Three groups of Israeli librarians were selected from academic, public, and special library settings. Researchers sent a message and a questionnaire to an Israeli library and information science discussion group, explaining the study purpose and asking its members to com- plete the questionnaire. This discussion group encompasses about 800 librarians. A total of 153 responses were received (19.25%). As for LIS students, there are approximately 800 enrolled nationwide. Researchers received permission to en- ter different courses in a prominent LIS department and delivered 200 question- naires to the students. They explained the study purpose to students; of this group, 141 responded (17.62%). This research therefore had a total of 294 respondents. Data Analysis Of the librarians, 26 (17%) were male and 127 (83%) were female. Among LIS students, 26 (18.41%) were male and 115 (81.56%) were female. Addressing the en- tire sample, 52 respondents (17.68%) were male and 230 (82.31%) were female. The librarians’ average age was 47, while that of the LIS students was 30. To examine differences among the two groups con- cerning age, a T-test was conducted and showed a significant difference, t = 15.13, p < .001. Among librarians, 43 (28.1%) used smartphones and 110 (71.9%) did not. Within the LIS students, 75 (53.1%) used smartphones and 66 (46.8%) did not. Concerning their education, 46 (30.1%) had a bachelor’s in LIS, 74 (48.4%) had a master’s in LIS, and 33 (21.6%) had a professional certificate in LIS. Regarding LIS students’ education, 84 (59.5%) stud- ied for a BA in LIS, 36 (25.7%) for a MA in LIS, and 21 (15 %) for a PhD in LIS. Table 1 summarizes some of the demographic characteristics. Measures Researchers used two questionnaires to gather data: a personal details question- naire and a mobile technology question- naire (Appendix A). The personal details questionnaire had seven statements. The mobile technology questionnaire, based on Liu, Li, and Carlsson,38 consisted of 15 statements rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongest disagreement; 7=strongest agreement) and was previously validated by Aharony.39 A principal components 206 College & Research Libraries March 2014 factor analysis using Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was con- ducted, which explained 60 percent of the variance and revealed four distinct factors. These were: behavioral intention to use mobile technology (items 3, 6, 8, 12); perceptions about mobile technol- ogy ease of use (items 1, 9, 11); personal innovativeness (items 5, 7, 10); and per- ceptions about mobile technology useful- ness (items 2, 4, 13, 14, 15). The values of Cronbach’s Alpha were .82, .84, .83, and .70, respectively. Results To examine whether there are differences between the two groups concerning dura- tion, frequency, and experience involving mobile devices, a MANOVA, which is a statistical test procedure for comparing multivariate means of several groups, was performed. The MANOVA revealed a significant difference between the two groups (F(3.221) = 48.40, p < .001, η² = .40). Means, standard deviations, and the MANOVA analysis for each group are presented in table 2. Table 2 shows significant differences between the two groups concerning mo- bile use. The largest difference is associ- ated with mobile duration use. The results demonstrate that students’ mobile use in all three measures is higher than that of librarians. Since there was a difference between the groups due to age, a MAN- COVA was performed in which age was entered as a covariate. The MANCOVA main aim is to test for significant differ- ences between group means. Similar to previous results, significant differences were found between the two groups (F (3.219) = 33.86, p < .001, η² = .32). Thus, age is not the major factor influencing differ- ences between the groups. To examine whether there is a difference between the groups concerning their smartphone use, a chi-square (χ2) analysis was conducted. A significant difference between the groups was found, with χ2 = 17.59, p < .001. Among students, 52.2 percent use smartphones, while only 28.1 percent of librarians do so. Investigating respondents’ attitudes toward mobile technology, researchers used four measures: mobile technology TABLE 1 Librarians and LIS Students’ Demographic Characteristics Librarians LIS Students Total Measures Number % Number % Number % Male 26 17 26 18.41 52 17.68 Female 127 83 115 81.56 242 83 Age 47 30 Smartphone Use 43 28.1 75 53.1 118 40.13 TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Respondents’ Mobile Use Measures Librarians Students F (1,290) η² M SD M SD Duration .59 1.16 2.54 1.20 138.32*** .38 Frequency 2.29 1.31 2.58 1.22 31.19*** .13 Experience 2.21 .88 2.61 .62 43.72*** .16 *** p < .001 Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives 207 perceived ease of use, mobile technol- ogy usefulness, personal innovativeness, and behavioral intention to use mobile technology. To examine whether there are differences between the two groups concerning their attitudes toward mobile services, a MANOVA was performed and revealed a significant difference between them (F (4,287) = 3.09, p < .05, η² = .04). Means, standard deviations, and the MANOVA analysis for each research measure separately are given in table 3. Table 3 shows significant differences between the two groups in relation to mobile technology perceived ease of use and mobile technology usefulness. LIS students perceive mobile technology use- fulness and mobile technology perceived ease of use higher than do librarians. Researchers wanted to examine the re- lationship between the research variables (mobile duration use, mobile frequency use, mobile experience, and respondents’ attitudes toward mobile technology, such as mobile technology perceived ease of use, mobile technology usefulness, personal innovativeness, and behavioral intention to use mobile technology), and performed Pearson correlations on each group separately. Pearson’s correlation is used to find a correlation between at least two continuous variables. There were no significant differences between the two groups. Therefore, the following correla- tions address all respondents. Pearson correlations are presented in table 4. Significant positive correlations were found between mobile duration use, mobile frequency use, mobile experience, and respondents’ attitudes toward mobile technology. In other words, the more re- spondents use mobile services, the greater their intention to use mobile technology in the library. Further Pearson correlations were performed to examine the relation- ship between personal innovativeness, TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Respondents’ Attitudes toward Mobile Technology Measures Librarians Students F (1,290) η² M SD M SD Innovativeness 5.86 .99 5.94 .97 .20 .00 Usefulness 5.27 1.06 5.58 1.10 6.03* .02 Ease of Use 5.42 1.02 5.66 1.00 4.14* .01 Intention 5.86 .99 5.94 .97 .50 .00 *p <.05 TABLE 4 Pearson Correlations between Mobile Duration Use, Mobile Frequency Use, Mobile Experience, and Respondents’ Attitudes toward Mobile Technology (n = 294) Measures Usefulness Ease of Use Innovativeness Intention Duration .26*** .23*** .32*** .19** Frequency .23*** .25*** .37*** .25*** Experience .19** .22*** .29*** .19** ** p < .01 *** p < .001 208 College & Research Libraries March 2014 mobile technology ease of use, mobile technology usefulness, and behavioral intention to use mobile technology. Sig- nificant high positive correlations were found between ease of use (r = .52, p < .001), personal innovativeness (r = .62, p < .001), mobile technology usefulness (r = .71, p < .001), and behavioral intention to use mobile technology. Researchers also conducted a hierar- chical regression analysis that is used to evaluate the relationship between a set of independent variables and the dependent variable, controlling for or taking into account the impact of a different set of independent variables on the dependent variable. In the current analysis, behav- ioral intention to use mobile technology was considered as a dependent variable. The predictors were entered as five steps: (1) research two groups: librarians and students; (2) smartphone measures: users or nonusers and frequency of smartphone use; (3) perceptions about personal inno- vativeness and about mobile technology ease of use; (4) perceptions about mobile technology usefulness; (5) interactions be- tween the two research groups X research measures. The interactions that were added in the fifth step did not add sig- nificantly to the explained variance, thus the following analysis deals only with the four first steps. This regression explained 57 percent of the behavioral intention to use mobile technology. Table 5 presents the coefficients of this regression. TABLE 5 Hierarchical Regression Coefficients of Respondents’ Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Technology (n =294) Step Predictors B β R² ΔR² 1 Group .28 .14* .02 .02 2 Groups –.14 –.07 .11*** .09*** Smartphone Use .38 .20* Frequency of Use .16 .21** 3 Groups .18 .09 .43*** .32*** Smartphone Use .25 .13 Frequency of Use .01 .02 Innovativeness .33 .47* Ease of Use .18 .19** 4 Groups .26 .12 .57*** .14*** Smartphone Use .20 .10 Frequency of Use .00 .00 Innovativeness .19 .26*** Ease of Use .09 .10 Usefulness .42 .48*** *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives 209 Examining the first step (research two groups) reveals that the group variable contributed significantly by adding 2 percent to the explained variance. The beta coefficient was positive. Students appear to express higher intention to use mobile technology in the library than librarians. The second step introduced the smartphone variables (usage or non- usage of smartphone and the frequency of smartphone usage) and contributed significantly by adding 9 percent to the explained variation of behavioral inten- tion to use mobile technology. Beta coef- ficients were positive. In other words, respondents who use smartphones regu- larly have greater behavioral intention to use mobile technology in the library. The third step introduced perceptions about personal innovativeness and mobile technology ease of use, which contrib- uted significantly by adding 32 percent to the explained variance of behavioral intention to use mobile technology. Beta coefficients were again positive. Respon- dents who perceive themselves as higher in personal innovativeness, and who perceive mobile technology as easier to use, appear to have a higher behavioral intention to use mobile technology in the library. The fourth step added re- spondents’ perceptions about mobile technology usefulness, and this also contributed significantly by adding 14 percent to the explained variance of be- havioral intention to use mobile technol- ogy. The beta coefficient was positive. We may conclude that the more respondents perceived mobile technology as useful, the greater is their behavioral intention to use mobile technology. The inclusion of this variable also caused a decrease in the β size of personal innovativeness. Sobel test indicated that usefulness me- diates between personal innovativeness and behavioral intention to use mobile technology (z =8.10, p < .001). Hence, the more respondents perceive mobile technology as innovative, the more they perceive its usefulness, and the higher their intention to use it. Discussion The present research explored two main themes: whether there are differences between librarians and LIS students’ perspectives toward mobile services; and to what extent the TAM model explains librarians’ and LIS students’ perspec- tives about mobile services. The first issue refers to differences between the two groups and addresses the first five research hypotheses. The findings reveal that four out of five hypotheses were ac- cepted. LIS students use mobile phones more than librarians (H1). In the current research, LIS students were younger than librarians; thus, these findings are not surprising and echo other research that found age is one of the most important variables influencing IT acceptance40 and that older workers are less prone to adopt new IT products. Results pertaining to H2 and H3, which refer to the differences between the two groups, were also supported. The find- ings show that LIS students’ levels of perceived ease of use of and usefulness of mobile technology are higher than those of librarians. Concerning the component of mobile services’ ease of use, it seems that students, who make greater use of mobile technologies, perceive its use as easy, smooth, free of effort, accessible, and simple. Moreover, it appears that students who make greater use of smart technology appreciate its usefulness. These findings can be associated with Bhattacherjee,41 who determined that a person is more likely to continue usage when it is perceived to be helpful. In the present research, those students who have already used mobile technologies within different domains to a greater extent tend to see its benefits and assimilate it within the library sphere. Since the data indicate that the two core components of TAM are higher for LIS students than for librarians, we can assume that this is the result of greater use of and exposure to new IT applications by these participants. However, H4, which focuses on the difference between the groups concerning 210 College & Research Libraries March 2014 their level of personal innovativeness, was not accepted. No significant difference was found between LIS students and librarians. This finding may be explained as follows: perhaps because personal in- novativeness is considered a stable per- sonality characteristic across situational considerations,42 it does not matter if a respondent is a librarian or a student. The personality characteristic is the dominant feature and not respondents’ roles. H5 was accepted, revealing that LIS students intend to use mobile services in the library more than librarians. This finding expands on the trend discussed so far (that is, that students’ perceptions about the value of mobile services in the library are higher than librarians’). In other words, students tend more than librarians to assimilate and use the newest IT applications in the library. It appears that students, who are in the process of learning, are more flexible and ready to examine new technological tools than librarians—who are more rigid and prefer continuing working with older, known platforms. Again, the findings suggest that students appreciate the usefulness and ease of use of mobile services and are ready to experience and work with them in library settings. This finding is consis- tent with other studies. Walsh asserted that students did not think text messag- ing from the library is intrusive,43 and Seeholzer and Salem noted that students expressed more interest than expected in using their mobile devices to interact with library sources and services.44 To conclude, the first question of the study reveals differences between the two re- search groups. Librarians should there- fore understand that the library world is constantly changing and transforming itself. Thus, if they want to continue to be relevant, they should show patrons that they know and use the latest technologies as tools to improve their work. Librarians should recognize the benefits and costs of the newest technologies, use them to their fullest advantage, and serve library users with the most current means. They should also understand that, by using mobile services in libraries, they will increase the number of users, since people can access the library without the restrictions of dis- tance and time. The younger generation of LIS students has already grasped this concept, expressing their wish to assimi- late technological innovations into their future workplaces. H6 and H7 refer to the TAM model. The two hypotheses associated with the core components of the model were accepted. The findings suggest that the more respondents perceive the ease of use and usefulness of mobile services, the higher their intention to assimilate them into libraries. These results can be associated with previous studies noting that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness affect the intention to use IT.45 When librarians and students grasp library mobile services as easy to use and able to improve library work, they intend to use it. Thus, the more librarians and students encounter beneficial and simple mobile library applications, the more they use them. Hence, designers of mobile applications should emphasize potential usefulness, as well as ease of use of their products. H8 was also supported, adding another personality characteristic dimension to the TAM. Respondents who perceive themselves as higher in personal innova- tiveness also consider library mobile ser- vices positively and have higher behav- ioral intentions to use mobile technology in the library. This finding can be related to Agarwal and Prasad’s suggestion that people with a high degree of personal in- novativeness would be more likely to take advantage of a new technology,46 in our case mobile services in the library. It can be argued that such people are looking for challenging and intriguing experiences. Adding these new technologies to the library is perhaps exciting for them. Fur- thermore, those who perceive themselves as higher in personal innovativeness may bring a fresh, up-to-date perspective of the library to other library users. Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives 211 The last hypothesis (H9) was also ac- cepted, indicating that respondents who use smartphones have higher intentions to use mobile services in the library than those who do not use smartphones. In other words, those who have already worked with mobile devices tend to transfer their experience to libraries as well. Most likely, they recognize the easy interface that mobile services offer, as well as the ability to access databases and other library services anywhere and anytime. This finding can be associated with Spacey, Goulding and Murray’s study of the attitudes of public library staff to the Internet, based on TAM. They noted that perceptions toward the Inter- net are related to its actual use.47 That is, those librarians who have experienced working with the Internet have better perceptions toward it. To sum up, the last four hypotheses addressed the TAM model and expanded it by adding further characteristics, such as personal innova- tiveness and smartphone use, that may explain why people adopt or do not adopt new technologies. Conclusions and Limitations On the whole, the current study sup- ported the two core variables of the TAM (perceived ease of use and usefulness), as well as personal innovativeness that may predict librarians’ and students’ behavior- al intention to use mobile services in the library. Hence, we should try to continue and strengthen this trend within the LIS community to show library patrons that the main actors in this field know, master, and use current technological tools. The study found that the main difference between the two groups is smartphone use. This variable has a great effect on participants’ behavioral intention to use mobile services in the library. As noted, LIS students make greater use of mobile technology; as a result, their attitudes toward this phenomenon are more favor- able. It seems, then, that library directors should expose librarians more extensively to the latest technologies, demonstrate their advantages, and explain to librar- ians how to use them as tools to improve library services. We assume that greater exposure and experience with mobile devices may change and improve librar- ians’ attitudes toward incorporating mo- bile services in the library. Furthermore, library directors should explain to their employees that, because libraries are now in continuous change, they should use the most up-to-date technologies to stay relevant for their users. In addition, they can motivate their staffs to use new platforms by offering incentives. However, this study has several limi- tations. The first is that, to gain a broader perspective, it is recommended to carry out a further study that will include a larger number of Israeli participants (from both groups). In addition, the current study focused only on the Israeli LIS commu- nity. Hence, the researchers suggest that, if we would like to have an international LIS perspective toward mobile library services, the study should be conducted in other countries as well. Another limitation that should be taken into consideration is the fact that perhaps those LIS students who participated in the survey wanted to create an impression that they are techno- logically savvy, a fact that might influence their responses. Moreover, future studies may include further variables in the TAM model to gain a thorough understanding of its significance. Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Ari Sigal, MLS (Catawba Valley Community Col- lege, Hickory, NC) for editorial assistance. 212 College & Research Libraries March 2014 Appendix A. Librarians’ Questionnaire Personal Details 1. Male / Female 2. Age: 3. Education: 3.1 Bachelor’s degree 3.2 Master’s degree 3.3 Professional certificate 4. Do you use smartphone? Yes/No 5. If yes, for how long 5.1 Less than half year 5.2 Between 6 and 12 months 5.3 Between 12 and 18 months 5.4 More than 2 years 6. What is the frequency you use mobile services (during a week) 6.1 Never 6.2 1–5 times a week 6.3 5–10 times a week 6.4 More than 10 times a week Appendix B. Librarians’ Perceptions about Mobile Services Below are statements concerning your attitudes toward the assimilation of mobile services in your organization. Please mark with X the column that describes your accordance with the following statements (1 = not at all; 7 = at a very high level) Statement 1. Not at All 2. Very Limited 3. Slightly 4. Almost Average Level 5. Average Level 6. More than Aver- age 7. At a Very High Level 1 It would be easy for me to become skillful at m-technology 2 Using m-technology will help me in the long run 3 I believe libraries will use m-technology in the future Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives 213 Statement 1. Not at All 2. Very Limited 3. Slightly 4. Almost Average Level 5. Average Level 6. More than Aver- age 7. At a Very High Level 4 I believe that using m-technology in the library will improve my work at the library 5 I like to experiment with new information technologies 6 I intend using m-tech- nology in the future 7 Among my friends, I'm the first one to try out new information technologies 8 I believe I'll use m-technology in the future 9 I think learning to use m-technology is very simple 10 If I hear about a new information technol- ogy, I would look for ways to experiment with it 11 I think that, generally, m-technology use is simple 12 Libraries will use m-technologies in the near future 13 I believe using m-tech- nology will improve my work in the library and library efficiency 14 Using m-technology helps me develop my personal future goals 15 Using m-technology will contribute to my personal success in the future 214 College & Research Libraries March 2014 Appendix C. Students’ Questionnaire Personal Details 1. Male / Female 2. Age: 3. Education: 3.1 Bachelor’s degree 3.2 Master’s degree 3.3 PhD 4. Do you use smartphone? Yes/No 5. If yes, for how long 5.1 Less than half year 5.2 Between 6 and 12 months 5.3 Between 12 and 18 months 5.4 More than 2 years 6. What is the frequency you use mobile services (during a week) 6.1 Never 6.2 1–5 times a week 6.3 5–10 times a week 6.4 More than 10 times a week 7. Experience with mobile technologies 7.1 I do not know what it is, I have never used it 7.2 I know what it is, I have never used it 7.3 I know what it is, I use it. Appendix D. Students’ Perceptions about Mobile Services Below are statements concerning your attitudes toward the assimilation of mobile services in the library. Please mark with X the column that describes your accordance with the following statements (1 = not at all; 7 = at a very high level) Statement 1. Not at All 2. Very Limited 3. Slightly 4. Almost Average Level 5. Average Level 6. More than Aver- age 7. At a Very High Level 1 It would be easy for me to become skillful at m-technology 2 Using m-technology will help me in the long run Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives 215 Statement 1. Not at All 2. Very Limited 3. Slightly 4. Almost Average Level 5. Average Level 6. More than Aver- age 7. At a Very High Level 3 I believe libraries will use m-technology in the future 4 I believe that using m-technology in the library will improve my work at the library 5 I like to experiment with new information technologies 6 I intend using m-tech- nology in the future 7 Among my friends, I'm the first one to try out new information technologies 8 I believe I'll use m-technology in the future 9 I think learning to use m-technology is very simple 10 If I hear about a new information technol- ogy, I would look for ways to experiment with it 11 I think that, generally, m-technology use is simple 12 Libraries will use m-technologies in the near future 13 I believe using m-tech- nology will improve my work in the library and library efficiency 14 Using m-technology helps me develop my personal future goals 15 Using m-technology will contribute to my personal success in the future 216 College & Research Libraries March 2014 Notes 1. Simon Speight, “M-libraries: Libraries on the Move to Provide Virtual Access,” Ariadne 61 (Oct. 2009), available online at www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue61/speight-rvw/ [accessed 24 April 2012]. 2. John Lippincott, “A Mobile Future for Academic Libraries,” Reference Services Review 38, no. 2 (2010): 205–13. 3. Laurie Bridges, Hannah G. Rempel, and Kimberly Griggs, “Making the Case for a Fully Mobile Library Web Site: From Floor Maps to the Catalog,” Reference Services Review 38, no. 2 (2010): 309–20. 4. Jim Hahn, “Mobile Learning for the Twenty-First Century Librarian,” Reference Services Review 36, no. 3 (2008): 272–88. 5. Matt Connolly, Tony Cosgrave, and Baseema Krkoska, “Mobilizing the Library’s Web Presence and Services: A Student-Library Collaboration to Create the Library’s Mobile Site and iPhone Application,” Reference Librarian, 52 (2011): 27–35. 6. Ellyssa Kroski, “On the Move with the Mobile Web: Libraries and Mobile Technologies,” Library Technology Report 44, no. 5 (2008): 1–48. 7. Lorraine Paterson and Boon Low, “Student Attitudes towards Mobile Library Services for Smartphones,” Library Hi Tech 29, no. 3 (2011): 412–23. 8. Alison Meier, “Comparative Analysis, Mobile Device User Research” (2010), available online at https://wiki.ucop.edu/display/CMDUR/Home [accessed 22 February 2012]; Keren Mills, “M-libraries: Information Use on the Move” (2009), available online at http://arcadiaproject.lib. cam.ac.uk/docs/M-Libraries_report.pdf [accessed 22 February 2012]. 9. Andrew Walsh, “Mobile technologies in Libraries” (2010), available online at http://web. fumsi.com/go/article/use/60968 [accessed 20 January 2012]. 10. Jamie Seeholzer and Joseph Salem, “Library on the Go: A Focus Group Study of the Mobile Web and the Academic Library,” College & Research Libraries 72, no. 1 (2011): 9–20. 11. Fred Barnhart and Jeannette Pierce, “Becoming Mobile: Reference in the Ubiquitous Li- brary,” Journal of Library Administration 51 (2011): 279–90. 12. Fred Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Infor- mation Technology,” MIS Quarterly 13, no. 3 (1989): 319–39. 13. Anol Bhattacherjee, “Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation– Confirmation Model,” MIS Quarterly 25, no. 3 (2001): 351–70. 14. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use”; Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael Morris, Gordon Davis, and Fred Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” MIS Quarterly 27, no. 3 (2003): 425–78. 15. Kwasi Amoako-Gyampah and A.F. Salam, “An Extension of the Technology Environment,” Information & Management 41, no. 6 (2003): 731–45; Fred Davis, Richard Bagozzi, and Paul War- shaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science 35, no. 8 (1989): 982–1003; Inge Klopping and Earl McKinney, “Extending the Technology Acceptance Model and the Task-Technology Fit Model to Consumer E-Commerce,” Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 22, no. 1 (2004): 35–48. 16. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use.” 17. Viswanath Venkatesh and Fred Davis, “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Ac- ceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management Science 46, no. 2 (2000): 186–204. 18. Alexander Serenko, “A Model of User Adoption of Interface Agents for E-Mail Notifica- tion,” Interacting with Computers 20 (2008): 461–72. 19. Su-Chao Chang and Feng-Cheng Tung, “An Empirical Investigation of Students’ Behavioural Intentions to Use the Online Learning Course Websites,” British Journal of Educational Technol- ogy 39, no. 1 (2008): 71–83; Chao-Min Chiu, Hua-Yang Lin, Szu-Yuan Sun, and Meng-Hsiang Hsu,“Understanding Customers’ Loyalty Intentions Towards Online Shopping: An Integration of Technology Acceptance Model and Fairness Theory,” Behavior & Information Technology 28, no. 4 (2009): 347–60; Siong-Hoe Lau and Peter Woods, “Understanding Learner Acceptance of Learning Objects: The Roles of Learning Object Characteristics and Individual Differences,” British Journal of Educational Technology 40, no. 6 (2009): 1059–75; Ming-Chi Lee, “Explaining and Predicting Us- ers’ Continuance Intention Toward E-Learning: An Extension of the Expectation–Confirmation Model,” Computer & Education 54, no. 2 (2010): 506–16; Byoung-Chan Lee, Jeong-Ok Yoon, and In Lee, “Learners’ Acceptance of E-learning in South Korea: Theories and Results,” Computers & Education 53, no. 4 (2009): 1320–29. 20. Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology.” 21. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology.” 22. Said Al-Gahtani, “The Applicability of TAM Outside North America: An Empirical Test in the United Kingdom,” Information Resources Management Journal 14, no. 3 (2001): 37–46. Mobile Libraries: Librarians’ and Students’ Perspectives 217 23. Gregory Rose and Detmar Straub, “Predicating General IT Use: Applying TAM to the Arabic World,” Journal of Global Information Management 6, no. 3 (1998): 39–46. 24. James Thong, Weiyin Hong, and Kar-Yan Tam, “Understanding User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: What Are the Roles of Interface Characteristics, Organizational Context, and Individual Differences?” International Journal Human-Computer Studies 57, no. 3 (2002): 215–42. 25. Ganesh Vaidyanathan, Asghar Sabbaghi, and Michael Bargellini, “User Acceptance of Digital Library: An Empirical Exploration of Individual and System Components,” Journal of Computer Information Systems 6, no. 2 (2005): 279–85. 26. Namkee Park, Raul Roman, Seungyoon Lee, and Jae Eun Chung, “User Acceptance of a Digital Library System in Developing Countries: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model,” International Journal of Information Management 29, no. 3 (2009): 196–209. 27. James Thong, Weiyin Hong, and Kar-Yan Tam, “Understanding User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: What Are the Roles of Interface Characteristics, Organizational Context, and Individual Differences?” International Journal Human-Computer Studies 57, no. 3 (2002): 215-242. 28. Ganesh Vaidyanathan, Asghar Sabbaghi, and Michael Bargellini, “User Acceptance of Digital Library: An Empirical Exploration of Individual and System Components,” Journal of Computer Information Systems 6, no. 2 (2005): 279-285. 29. Park, Roman, Lee, and Chung, “User Acceptance of a Digital Library System.” 30. Chang Jung-Jung and Yang Chyan, “Viable or Vital? Evaluation of IM Services from Patrons’ Perspectives,” Electronic Library 30, no. 1 (2012): 70–88. 31. Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations,7th ed. (New York: Free Press, 2003). 32. David Midgley and Grahame Dowling, “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measure- ment,” Journal of Consumer Research 4, no. 4 (1978): 229–42. 33. Ritu Agarwal and Jayesh Prasad, “A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology,” Information Systems Research 9, no. 2 (1998): 204–15. 34. Erik Van Raaij and Jeroen Schepers, “The Acceptance and Use of a Virtual Learning Envi- ronment in China,” Computers & Education 50 (2008): 838–52. 35. William Lewis, Ritu Agarwal, and Vallabhajosyula Sambamurthy, “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers,” MIS Quarterly 27 (2003): 657–78. 36. Nimet Uray and Ayla Dedeoglu, “Identifying Fashion Clothing Innovators by Self-Report Method,” Journal of Euromarketing 6, no. 3 (1997): 27–46. 37. Meera Venkatraman, “The Impact of Innovativeness and Innovation Type and Adoption,” Journal of Retailing 67, no. 1 (1991): 51–67. 38. Yong Liu, Hongxiu Li, and Christer Carlsson, “Factors Driving the Adoption of M-Learning: An Empirical Study,” Computers & Education 55, no. 3 (2010): 1211–19. 39. Noa Aharony, “Librarians’ Attitudes towards Mobile Services,” (2012) Under Review. 40. June Lu, Chun-sheng Yu, and Yong Liu, “Gender and Age Differences in Individual De- cisions about Wireless Mobile Data Services: A Report from China” (2005), available online at http://helsinkimobility.aalto.fi/papers/Mobile%20Services _1_3.pdf [accessed 25 February 2012]; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology.” 41. Bhattacherjee, “Understanding Information Systems Continuance.” 42. Agarwal and Prasad, “A Conceptual and Operational Definition.” 43. Walsh, “Mobile Technologies in Libraries.” 44. Seeholzer and Salem, “Library on the Go.” 45. Al-Gahtani, “The Applicability of TAM Outside North America”; Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology”; Rose and Straub, “Predicating General IT Use”; Serenko, “A Model of User Adoption.” 46. Agarwal and Prasad, “A Conceptual and Operational Definition.” 47. Rachel Spacey, Anne Goulding, and Ian Murray, “Exploring the Attitudes of Public Library Staff to the Internet Using the TAM,” Journal of Documentation 60, no. 5 (2004): 550–64.