The context and state of open source software adoption in US academic libraries
| Published date | 18 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-02-2019-0042 |
| Date | 18 November 2019 |
| Pages | 641-659 |
| Author | Namjoo Choi,Joseph A. Pruett |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library technology,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information user studies,Information & knowledge management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
The context and state of open
source software adoption in US
academic libraries
Namjoo Choi
School of Information Science,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA, and
Joseph A. Pruett
Porter Henderson Library, Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to identify barriers and drivers to open source software (OSS)
adoption, and measures awareness and adoption stages of OSS in US academic libraries.
Design/methodology/approach –An online survey of chief information officers, chief technology
officers or heads for IT in US academic libraries was conducted. A total number of 179 responses were used
for data analysis.
Findings –From the survey, the authors identify significant barriers and drivers that US academic libraries
may consider before adopting OSS and found that awareness itself is not a barrier. While about half of
respondents confirmed using OSS, the authors found surprisingly low levels of intent to adopt from current
non-adopters.
Practical implications –This research offers insights for promoting OSS adoption. Also, it provides
funding agencies and administrators with guidelines to encourage successful deployment of OSS in
higher education.
Originality/value –While extant research is mostly anecdotal, this research draws from an online survey to
snap-shot the current state of OSS adoption in US academic libraries and provides a baseline for practice
and research.
Keywords Academic libraries, University libraries, USA, Survey, Open source software,
Information technology adoption
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The pace of technological advances has drastically evolved academic libraries’operations
and service provision. Adopting new technologies is a continuous challenge that academic
libraries must accept, if they wish to remain the information service providers for higher
education institutions (Palmer and Choi, 2014). Some mission-critical technologies for
libraries include the integrated library system (ILS), which manages library holdings and
subscriptions, and the digital library, which collects and manages digital assets (e.g.
institutional repositories).
There are a variety of commercial or proprietary options for these systems. However,
given today’s shrinking budgets and ever-increasing need for technology, there has been an
increasing interest in open source software (OSS) for academic libraries. OSS differs from
proprietary software, requiring “‘free distribution’, readily-modifiable source code, and
permission for developers to create derivatives from the original software (http://
opensource.org/docs/definition.php)”(Choi and Pruett, 2015). These characteristics often
create a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) and more power to customize software
(Metcalfe and Rahtz, 2006). Academic libraries may develop OSS in-house, and contract with
a vendor or consortium for software services.
There is a growing variety of OSS adopted by academic libraries. Some examples include
Koha and Evergreen (ILSs); Samvera and DSpace (institutional repositories); and Blacklight
Library Hi Tech
Vol. 37 No. 4, 2019
pp. 641-659
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/LHT-02-2019-0042
Received 11 February 2019
Revised 21 June 2019
5 August 2019
Accepted 7 August 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
641
The context
and state of
OSS adoption
and VuFind (discovery interfaces). OSS is exciting since it offers lower costs, greater
flexibility and other benefits. Many researchers have studied its adoption (e.g. Blackburn
and Walker, 2010; Blanke et al., 2012), usability (e.g. Brantley et al., 2006) and economic value
(e.g. Breeding, 2008) for academic libraries. However, most of the research has focused on
the development or implementation of widely known OSS products in specific institutions,
and thus offers limited implications.
The objective of this research is to monitor OSS adoption in US academic libraries
through examining barriers and drivers to adoption, measuring institutional awareness and
adoption stages and analyzing essential characteristics of the libraries’parent institutions
(e.g. public or private, degree offerings) in relation to the aforementioned research variables.
We do this through an online survey of academic libraries’chief information officers (CIOs),
chief technology officers (CTOs) or heads for IT.
2. Literature review
Regardless of anyone’s ideological viewpoint of OSS, it permeates our digital lives. Apache
remains the top web server for the busiest and most active websites (https://news.netcraft.
com/archives/2017/11/21/november-2017-web-server-survey.html). Firefox is the second
most popular desktop browser (http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/
worldwide/#monthly-201712-201712-bar). Many popular and well-known proprietary
products, such as the Google Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system
draw substantially from OSS projects such as Chromium and the Linux kernel (www.
chromium.org/; https://developer.android.com/guide/platform/index.html). These OSS
products derive advantage from their development model. More than a requisite public
display of human-readable source code, OSS license terms escape copyright and patent law
to permit faster improvement and peer review of software (see www.copyright.gov/circs/
circ61.pdf; https://opensource.org/docs/definition.php). Many industries seek to leverage
this development model to improve their services and reduce IT costs.
Of course, the form of that leverage depends on the industry. Considering library
software, Altman (2001) and Poulter (2010) list the general disadvantages of OSS, e.g., that
forked projects or attrition can weaken an open development community, that TCO or lack
of in-house expertise can prohibit adoption (Poulter, 2010, p. 658; Upasani, 2016), and that
poor interface design impinges its users (Altman, 2001, p. 6). They also list the general
advantages of OSS as lower general or initial costs, and fast or “lively”development models
within open development communities. In addition, libraries and the OSS movement share
the ideals of “free access”to and collaboration regarding information, and the movement
arguably enables the libraries’mission of patron privacy and resource preservation
(Puckett, 2012; Altman, 2001). Chudnov (1999, p. 41) conflates libraries and OSS with
community-based initiative, and gives evidence of an even earlier precedence for this
conflation in higher education:
In an email to me, free software guru Richard Stallman […] noted that way back in 1971, there was
an openness policy at a computer facility he used at Harvard. “They had a firm policy: the source
code for all the software installed for general use on the computer must be on display for people to
look at. The stated reason was, ‘We are an educational institution, and we are here for people to
learn about computers. That should include learning how the software on this computer works […]’
Libraries should actively discourage the concealment of generally useful knowledge, and that
includes proprietary software”. (Chudnov, 1999, p. 41)
The current literature has uncovered existing and potential benefits of OSS for mission-
critical IT in academic libraries.
The bulk of OSS research in academic libraries has employed case studies, and
comparisons and assessments of well-defined, monolithic software applications such as
642
LHT
37,4
To continue reading
Request your trial