Information literacy self-efficacy of scientists working at the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

Introduction

Information literacy is generally defined as the ability to recognize information needs, to identify, locate, access, understand, evaluate, and use information efficiently, effectively, legally, and ethically in solving problems and making informed decisions (ACRL, 2000; ALA, 1989). It is an essential competency required for having a competitive advantage, improving decision-making, and enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of the workforce (Gardner, 2000; Goad, 2002; Karim and Hussein, 2008; Klusek and Bornstein, 2006). Employers require a workforce having competence to interact with contemporary information environment, willingness to learn new skills, and the ability to monitor, adopt, and adapt unique trends to deliver maximum business value (Cheuk, 2002, 2008; Lloyd, 2003; Perrault, 2007). Moreover, Drucker (1992) elaborated the need for corporations to become information literate by suggesting questions to be asked such as what and when information was required? In what form and how to get it?

Information literacy differs in workplace and academic settings because the information behaviour of workers are different from that of students (Kirton and Barham, 2005; Lloyd, 2010; O’Farrill, 2010). In academia, students usually need to complete assignments, projects, Workers usually adopt multiple approaches in looking for and using information that go beyond the mastery of information seeking that students apply to learn how to think, see, and craft narratives (Hepworth and Smith, 2008; Johnson et al., 2010). In addition, learning in academic environments, where students usually establish their information needs, justifies appropriate information sources. This is quite different from the workplace where learning is viewed through workers’ on-site activities and shared through social context (Jinadu and Kaur, 2014). Lloyd (2012, p. 773) has described it as ‘person-in-practice perspective’. He elaborated the workplace as ‘a complex, socio-cultural practice that is discursively situated and constituted through the connections and networks that exist between people, artefacts, texts and bodily experiences’ (Lloyd, 2007, p. 2). The workplace is not like academic environment where students and teachers are bound in pedagogic approaches and linear learning steps.

Workplace information literacy can be defined as a socio-cultural practice, where social interactions and human relationships have a key role in information literacy development, informs learning in the workplace and is informed by it (Crawford and Irving, 2009; O’Farrill, 2010; Somerville and Howard, 2008; Weiner, 2011). However, it is worth-mentioning here that information literacy needs differ even in the workplace because employees’ information behaviour varies since their workplaces, contexts, professions, hierarchy, tasks, focuses, and products or services also vary (Abdi and Bruce, 2015; Hepworth and Smith, 2008; Jinadu and Kaur, 2014).

Literature review

The study of information literacy skills is and has been of fundamental concern to information professionals around the globe. There has been a tremendous and phenomenal increase in the number of publications on this area over the last few decades (Bruce, 2000; Lloyd, 2003, 2004; Marcum, 2002; Rader, 2002; Tuominen et al., 2005). A large majority of these studies focused primarily on academic libraries (e.g., Candy, 1998; Rader, 2002) and public libraries (Marcum, 2002). However, there is comparatively little research published on special libraries and information literacy in the workplace (Bruce 2000; Candy 1998; Kirton and Barham 2005; Lloyd 2010; Lloyd and Williamson 2008; Oman 2001; Wang et al., 2011; Weiner 2011).

Of the available information literacy research at the workplace, the studies of Bruce (1997) and Boon et al. (2007) investigated information literacy among academics, whereas Cheuk (1998) examined information literacy among auditors in Singapore. Kirk (2004) focused on senior managers while Lloyd (2007) on fire-fighters and ambulance officers in Australia. These studies quantified information literacy skills in the workplace focusing mainly on employees’ current practices and corporate needs (Cheuk, 2008). Travis (2011) surveyed the alumni of California State University in order to explore the use of information literacy skills in working environment. These graduates perceived information literacy skills important for getting their job done at the workplace.

While some researchers examined the perceptions of individual workers, other studies focused on information literacy at the organizational level. O’Sullivan (2002) explored whether corporate sector was aware of information literacy as a new economy skill set, and a solution to information overload. Klusek and Bornstein (2006) investigated the specific information literacy skills that are valued by business carriers in the workplace. An investigation by Crawford and Irving (2009) explored social interactions, within and outside organizations, as the prime source of information at the workplace rather than traditional printed and electronic information sources. This qualitative study indicated the need for recognition of human relationships in information literacy development in the workplace. Sasikala and Kumari (2013) highlighted the growing importance of information in industrial organizations and reviewed the status of information literacy initiatives at the workplace in India. This study reported that Vizag steel’s libraries had a reasonable amount of information resources and were providing different information services to the employees of Vizag steel’s industry. The areas in which information literacy instructions were being provided included effective use of internet, exploring information through electronic and print resources, web resources evaluation, technical writing skills, information discovery and management, online databases, and information retrieval.

An inquiry by Zhang et al., (2010, 2014) discovered, in a review article, that information literacy skills were essential for each step of environmental scanning and strategic decision making. Weiner’s study (2011) reviewed research on information literacy and the workplace, and reported the existence of a limited amount of literature on information literacy implications for workforce and job-related, life-long learning. Weiner categorised the existing research into three major areas such as the importance of information literacy for the workforce, how information literacy differs at work and in academic settings, and barriers to workplace information literacy. This review indicated the need for more inquiries on varied aspects of workplace information literacy to inform policy and practice.

Considering an increasing importance of workplace information literacy, Jinadu and Kaur (2014) proposed a four-stage model laying the foundation for empirical studies. The stages included share knowledge, analyse task, execute task and evaluation. On the other hand, Chaudhry and Al-Mahmud (2015) investigated the information management behaviour of Kuwaiti engineers by putting information literacy in a wider context. The results indicated that the Kuwaiti engineers found information from a variety of sources and managed selected information in folders, structured in work-related categories, for future use. These participants, who were not the users of information management tools, expressed a need for information literacy training.

Abdi and Bruce (2015) suggested an articulation of general context of the workplace in information literacy and distinguished between information literacy research in the workplace and in professions. Referring to the results of a phenomenographic investigation of Web professionals’ information literacy, they discovered that ‘web professionals relied on the interaction at professional level more than a physical workspace level when talking about information literacy’ (p. 64). In another study, Abdi (2017) discussed the way that virtuality enhanced the information literacy experience. He argued that virtuality focused primarily on the nature of work context rather than the workplace and considered it as an essential characteristic of work practices. With regard to this, information literacy could be experienced beyond the boundaries of the workplace and at a professional level. The articulation of general context of the workplace in information literacy research resulted in more segmented conception of workplace information literacy.

Raish and Rimland (2016) discovered that employers valued information literacy and meta-literacy skills and liked detailed representations of graduates’ skills. The employers also perceived that digital badges are a possible way to showcase graduates’ competencies. Gilbert (2017) examined the requirement of information literacy skills in the job postings for entry-level advertising professionals using content analysis. The results indicated that skills such as using information resources and tools, evaluating information, applying information, collaborating with colleagues, and technological skills were mentioned in at least 41% job postings whereas the skill for synthesizing information was rarely mentioned. Mugambi (2017) assessed information literacy skills of practicing nurses in Kenya. The results revealed that these respondents needed information mainly on patient care followed by in-house presentations, professional presentation for meeting or seminars, and career development. These nurses were aware of reference books, textbooks and people as sources of professional information. They had poor skills with regard to evaluating retrieved information, using online medical databases, and understating intellectual property rights. This research indicated a need for an information centre providing access to needed information and specialized information literacy skills. While Tyagi (2017) surveyed library professionals for gaining an overview of their knowledge and skills related to workplace information literacy in India.

A perusal of published research on workplace information literacy resulted few studies carried out in Pakistan. Of these few studies, Anwar (1981) outlined how user education had developed in Pakistan. In addition, this study reported a survey of college teachers and working scientists discovering the extent to which the respondents had been able to use the literature of their respective fields. The results indicated that a large majority of the scientists did not receive any training regarding using the subject literature at any time during their study or service. A small number of the respondents mentioned that they had received such training while studying at the university. All of the respondents considered user education as very important for developing skills in using the literature of their respective disciplines. The researcher recommended that a national user education programme should be developed for existing as well as potential scientists. In addition, he suggested the introduction of a subject entitled ‘Knowledge of information’ in the curriculum of all educational institutions in Pakistan and the proposed syllabus for this subject was also appended at the end of the paper.

In a recent study, Naveed and Rafique (2018) also discovered the extent to which scientists had been able to develop their information literacy skills. The results showed that a large majority of the scientists never received formal instruction during their entire academic career and perceived such instruction as very important for developing workers’ information related competencies. However, some scientists received short-term and basic level information literacy instruction covering literature surveys, searching field-related literature, and using Chemical Abstracts and indexes. These scientists found such instructions useful at the workplace. Most of the survey participants proposed short term duration for information literacy instruction, if offered, ranging from one day to one week.

Despite the importance given to information literacy skills in the workplace, there is much that needs to be investigated about workplace information literacy in different professional contexts to inform policy and practice. No study appears to have been conducted so far addressing information literacy self-efficacy in the context of scientists’ workplaces, which is an important gap in the literature. The current research, therefore, assesses information literacy self-efficacy of scientists working at the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (hereafter, ‘the Council’), Lahore. information literacy self-efficacy refers here to one’s ability to successfully recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use the needed information effectively (Kurbanoglu, 2003). The results will be useful for policy makers and practitioners not only in the Council but also at other institutions engaged in research and development, when developing a need-based and user-centered curriculum for information literacy instruction. This study will generate useful insights for information professionals especially those managing information literacy instruction and working at special, research, and academic libraries. This study would make a worthwhile contribution to the existing research on workplace information literacy in general and the context of the scientist’s workplace in particular. This study addressed the following research objectives:

1. To measure perceived information literacy self-efficacy of scientists working at Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Lahore.
2. To investigate the relationship of scientists’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy with demographic and academic variables such as age, sex, academic qualification, research experience, research publications, and information literacy instruction received.

Methods and procedures

A survey method using a semi-structured questionnaire was used to investigate scientists’ perceptions about information literacy self-efficacy. A perusal of published research indicated an information literacy self-efficacy scale developed by Kurbanoglu et al. (2006) as the most suitable and directly related data collection instrument. This scale had a reasonable length, was highly reliable and consistent, and widely utilized for an assessment of self-efficacy (Keshavarz et al., 2017; Kurbanoglu et al., 2006; Mahmood, 2017; Shim et al., 2009). There are twenty-eight statements in the scale with a high Cronbach Alpha (CA) value of 0.91 for the overall scale. This scale is structured into seven sub-dimensions namely: defining an information need (1 statement, CA= 0.47), initiating the search strategy (3 statements, CA= 0.57), locating and accessing the resources (8 statements, CA= 0.56), assessing and comprehending information (5 statements, CA= 0.46), Interpreting, synthesizing and using the information (2 statements, CA= 0.58), communicating information (7 statements, CA= 0.61) and evaluating the product and process (2 statements, CA= 0.43).

The present study adopted this scale to assess information literacy self-efficacy of scientists working at the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Lahore. The survey questionnaire consisted of the scale and some demographic variables such as age, sex, academic qualification, research experience, and number of publications. The statements of the scale were measured on a seven-point Likert type scale having response categories (1= almost never true, 2= usually not true, 3= sometimes but infrequently true, 4= occasionally true, 5= often true, 6= usually true, 7= almost always true).

The research setting

The Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was established in 1953 to promote the cause of science and technology in Pakistan. There are eleven laboratories and units and five Human Resource Development Centres established throughout Pakistan. Each of these units is headed by a Director General or Director who reports to the Chairman of the Council. The Lahore unit of the Council started functioning with some staff in a wing of the Institute of Chemistry, University of the Punjab, in 1953 and later shifted to its own permanent site provided by the Government of the Punjab. This unit has a commendable record of achievements. Its scientists and technologists claim to have completed more than 500 processes. Since its establishment, the unit has patented 100 processes. It has so far published more than 3,500 research papers in reputable national and international journals. the Council Labs Complex Lahore has the following functional centres under its umbrella:

1. Applied Chemistry Research Centre
2. Applied Physics, Computers and Research Centre
3. Centre for Environmental Protection Studies
4. Centre for Development of Laboratory Equipment
5. Electrical Measurement Test Laboratory
6. Engineering Services Centre
7. Food and Biotechnology Research Centre
8. Glass and Ceramics Research Centre
9. Mineral Processing Research Centre
10. Pakistan Institute of Technology for Minerals & Advanced Engineering Materials

Population and sampling

Data collection and analysis

The survey questionnaire was administered personally to the scientists with written permission of the higher authorities and by visiting each department. The scientists participated in the survey on voluntary basis and returned the completed questionnaires to the researcher after three weeks. A total of 121 questionnaires out of 140 were returned indicating a reasonably good and acceptable response (86.4%). Table 1 presents the details of responses received from each department. The rest of the scientists were either not available due to leave or did not respond due to personal reasons and administrative responsibilities.

Before data analysis, the received questionnaires were examined for accuracy and completeness of information resulting in no incomplete questionnaire to deal with. The data were entered into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for data analysis. The researcher applied both descriptive and inferential statistics for the analysis of the data.

Results

Scientists’ demographic and academic profile

It will be worthwhile to examine the demographic profile of these respondents before discussing their information literacy self-efficacy (Table 2). Of the 121 respondents, 76 (62.8%) were male and 45 (37.2%) female, indicating a reasonable female participation in the study. The age ranges were formed between 21 and 56 years. A majority of these respondents (n=47, 38.9%) falls in the age bracket of 31–40 years which was followed by those who were in age bracket of 41–50 years (n=35, 28.9%) and those who were below 30 years (n=22, 18.2%). There were only 17(14%) respondents who were above 50 years. The age distribution of the respondents indicated that these scientists were in the middle and active age of their life.

As far as the academic profile is concerned, 46 scientists (38.1%) had completed 16 years of education having BS or MA/MSc degrees (16 years of education). This was followed by those having doctoral degree (n=38, 31.4%). There were 37 (30.6%) respondents who had obtained MS/MPhil degrees (16 years of education). Out of 38 PhDs, only nine scientists had their PhD from foreign universities whereas 29 had their PhD from local universities. The figures indicated that a large share of the participants (n=50, 41.3%) had more than 16 years of work experience which was followed by those who had a working experience of 6-10 and 11–15 years. Only 17(14%) respondents had a work experience of up to five years. These results indicated that the scientists working at the Council are well distributed in terms of length of research experience.

These scientists were also asked to indicate the number of their research publications. Out of 121 scientists, 26 (21.5%) had “up to 4” publications, 16(13.2%) had “5 to 8”, 11(9.1%) had “9 to 12”, 14 (11.6%) had “13 to 16” and 38 (31.4%) had “above 16”. There were only sixteen (13.2%) respondents who did not have any publications. As a group, these scientists had a reasonably good level of research and publishing experience as a large majority had a working experience of more than five years and more than five research publications. It is important to note that a large majority (n=106, 87.6%) of these scientists never received any formal information literacy instruction. There were only a small number of respondents (n=15, 12.4%) who had received information literacy instruction either while studying at the universities/colleges or in service.

Respondents’ major field of interest

These scientists were asked to specify their major area of specialisation. These fields are listed in Table 3. Forty-six (38.0%) respondents were concentrated in the area of Chemistry which was followed by Material Sciences (n=16, 13.2%), Biotechnology (n=10, 8.3%), Environmental Sciences (n=8, 6.6%) and Physics (n=7, 5.8%). The remaining areas had a small representation.

Scientists’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy

These scientists were asked to record their self-perceived level of information literacy self-efficacy on a seven-point Likert scale. The mean and standard deviation of their responses for overall scale and for all its sub-dimensions were calculated. These measures were also used by Kurbanoglu (2003) to determine respondents’ levels of information literacy self-efficacy and many other researchers (Aharony and Gur, 2017; Kwon and Song, 2011; Mahmood, 2013; Naveed and Ameen, 2017; Ting-ting and Sun, 2012). The details are provided in Table 4. These scientists perceived that they were confident and competent in information literacy as they assessed themselves as ‘often true’ for overall information literacy self-efficacy scale and its sub-dimensions with mean scores of 3.94 and above. However, the mean and standard deviation for each item revealed that these scientists assessed themselves as ‘occasionally true’ for interpreting visual information, defining an information need, determining relevance and quality of information, synthesizing gathered information, evaluating information, using library e-resources, managing citations, and developing and initiating searching strategies using Boolean logic.

Relationship testing

The relationships of the total means scores of overall scale as well as sub-scales with demographic variables such age, sex, academic qualification, research experience, and number of publications were examined by applying inferential statistics such as correlation coefficients, t-test, and analysis of variance because these measures had been widely used and considered suitable in checking and comparing the means among groups (Field, 2009; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Also, these tests were successfully used in relationship testing by a number of studies in the area of information literacy (Baro and Fyneman, 2009; Kwon and Song, 2011; Mahmood, 2013; Naveed and Ameen, 2017; Punter et al., 2017; Taylor and Dalal, 2017; Tella and Mutula, 2008; Ting-ting and Sun, 2012). The results are presented in the following paragraphs.

Information literacy self-efficacy and age

The results of Pearson correlation coefficient indicated a statistically significate relationship between scientists’ age and their information literacy self-efficacy for the overall scale and all its sub-dimensions, as p¬-values were less than 0.05, except for the dimensions of “Assessing and comprehending information” and “Evaluating the product and process” (Table 5). In other words, there was a positive correlation between scientists’ age and information literacy self-efficacy which means that as the scientist age increased, their information literacy self-efficacy also increased.

Information literacy self-efficacy and sex

An independent sample t-test (two-tailed) was applied to check the mean differences of scientists’ information literacy self-efficacy with regard to their sex. Table 6 presents the results. These figures revealed a statistically significant relationship between scientist’s sex and information literacy self-efficacy for the overall scale and its sub-dimensions such as “Initiating the search strategy”, “Interpreting, synthesizing and using the information”, “Communicating information”, and “Evaluating the product and process” (P < 0.05). That is, female scientists had higher information literacy self-efficacy as compared to male scientists as the mean score of females were higher than males. Conversely, the mean differences were not statistically significant for the other three dimensions as p-values were greater than the alpha-value (0.05).

Information literacy self-efficacy and academic qualification

One-way analysis of variance was calculated to test the mean differences of scientists for the overall information literacy self-efficacy scale and its sub-dimensions based on their academic qualification such as BS, MA/MSc, MS/MPhil, and PhD. The figures in Table 7 indicate significant differences in the scientists’ mean scores with regard to their academic qualification for the overall ILSES (F = 3.096, P = 0.030 < 0.05) and its sub-dimensions of “Initiating the search strategy” (F = 3.379, P = 0.021 < 0.05) and “Communicating information” (F = 3.376, P = 0.021 < 0.05). In addition, a post hoc test using Tukey’s HSD revealed that scientists’ having doctoral degrees had higher mean scores as compared to those who had lower degrees. It means that information literacy self-efficacy increased as the academic qualifications of scientists increased for the overall scale and for the aforesaid dimensions. Conversely, no statistically significant differences appeared for the remaining sub-dimensions of the scale.

Information literacy self-efficacy and research experience

Table 8 provides the results of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient which was used to test the relationship between research experience and the information literacy self-efficacy of the respondents. The results indicate a positive relationship between research experience and information literacy self-efficacy for the overall scale and all its sub-dimensions, as p¬-values < 0.05, except for the dimension of “Assessing and comprehending information” as the P value was greater than the alpha value. In other words, the information literacy self-efficacy of these scientists increased as the years of their research experience increased.

Information literacy self-efficacy and research publication

The results of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient indicated a statistically significant and positive relationship between the number of research publications and information literacy self-efficacy of these scientists for the overall scale as well as for its five sub-dimensions, as p¬-values <0.05, except for the dimensions of “Assessing and comprehending information” and “Evaluating the product and process” (Table 9). In other words, as the number of research publications increased, the information literacy self-efficacy of scientists also increased.

Information literacy self-efficacy and instruction received

The results of independent sample t-test (Table 10) indicated no statistically significant relationship between information literacy instruction received for the overall scale and its sub-dimensions, as p-values were greater than 0.05, except for the dimension of “Locating and accessing the resources” (P < 0.05).

Discussion and implications

The analysis provided above indicated that a large majority of the participants (n=106, 87.6%) never received any formal training in information literacy. This finding was anticipated and was not surprising because the academic institutions in Pakistan especially schools and colleges did not make any provisions for instruction in information literacy. However, the university libraries are trying to do so but the programmes being offered are at an early stage and are far behind the developed world. A majority of the local institutions do not offer any kind of formal information literacy instruction (Hamid and Ahmad, 2016; Kousar and Mahmood, 2015; Anwar and Naveed, 2019; Naveed and Mahmood, 2019; Ullah and Ameen 2014).

The information literacy instruction offered at the present time, to a large extent, are unable to develop basic information literacy skills. In addition, the arrangements for developing information literacy skills of in-service information users are almost non-existent. These results were in line with those of Anwar (1979, 1981) and Naveed and Rafique (2018) who discovered that a majority of college teachers and scientists working at the Council did not receive any formal training with regard to searching subject-related literature. There were only 15 (12.4%) respondents who acknowledged having received instruction at any level. It was worth mentioning here that most of the scientists who received instruction had obtained their terminal degree from foreign academic institutions. Perhaps this was the main reason for the development of information literacy skills among these scientists because foreign academic institutions usually provide information literacy tuition to students at all levels.

The results revealed that the scientists perceived themselves as confident and competent in information literacy as they assessed themselves as ‘often true’ for the overall information literacy self-efficacy scale and its sub-dimensions. These results need to be interpreted considering the theory of Dunning-Kruger effect because Mahmood’s (2016) systematic review reported the empirical evidence of this effect in the area of information literacy, as low performers overestimated their information literacy skills in most of the cases. However, item-based analysis indicated low self-efficacy of these scientists regarding interpreting visual information, defining an information need, determining relevance and quality of information resources, synthesizing gathered information, evaluating information, using library e-resources, managing citations, and developing and initiating searching strategies using Boolean logic: they rated their skills as ‘occasionally true’ in these cases. This implies that these scientists were confident with basic levels of information literacy skills whereas they were less competent in more advanced level skills. These results were not surprising because a large majority of these scientists never received any formal information literacy training. These findings had quite serious implications to the research productivity of scientists in terms of quality and quantity. While more research needs to be conducted, it might be one the key reasons for low creativity and the innovations crisis in the country as Pakistan is least innovative and ranked 109 of 129 countries according to the global innovation index for 2019 (Global..., 2019). These scientists might be experienced anxiety associated with information related tasks in the absence of advanced information literacy skills as no studies existed addressing information anxiety at workplace (Naveed and Anwar, 2019, 2020).

In testing relationships, the respondents’ age, academic qualification, research experience, and number of publications appeared as the predictors of information literacy self-efficacy. There was a positive correlation between information literacy self-efficacy of these scientists and their age, sex, academic qualification, research experience, and number of research publications. This implies that the information literacy self-efficacy increases as their age, academic qualification, research experience, and as number of research publications increases. The results are in line with those of Aharony and Gur (2017), Naveed (2017), and Naveed and Ameen (2016a, 2016b, 2017) who reported that certain personal and academic variables such as age, higher education, and research experience affected efficacy levels with regard to information literacy. These results were anticipated and were not surprising because it was quite natural as scientists’ age, academic qualification, research experience, and research productivity increased, their learning experience, confidence, and competencies also increased at the workplace with the passage of time.

There was statistically significant relationship between information literacy self-efficacy of scientists based on their sex. The information literacy self-efficacy of female scientists was higher than the males. This finding is in line with that of Kwon and Song (2011), Naveed and Ameen (2017), Punter et al. (2017), and Taylor and Dalal (2017) who reported that females appeared to be more discerning than males in information literacy skills. However, some studies found males ahead of females in their perceived information literacy skills (Baro and Fyneman 2009; Ting-ting and Sun, 2012; Tella and Mutula, 2008).

The results revealed no significant relationship between information literacy self-efficacy of these scientists and the information literacy tuition they received. This finding was quite surprising since it contradicted the results of some previous studies which reported that information literacy tuition had greater effect on information literacy self-efficacy (Beile, 2003; Craig and Corrall, 2007; Gross and Latham, 2013; A et al., 2016; Lei Hsieh and Holden, 2010; Weightman et al., 2017). The possible reason might be due to the small number of respondents (15 out of 121) who received tuition during their entire career. Perhaps, the small number of respondents affected the results of t-test which was conducted to discover the differences in mean scores of self-efficacy based on the instruction received.

There is a critical need for making arrangements for the development of information literacy for both existing as well as potential scientists which would ultimately produce information literate workforce capable of active participation in sustainable socio-economic development of Pakistan. These results are useful for policy makers in the Council, especially the library administration, for designing a need-based information literacy programme for scientists working at different laboratories of the Council. The library staff should offer advanced level information literacy instruction as the scientists indicated high self-efficacy at the basic skills level. These results are also important for information professionals working in special libraries for planning need-based information literacy programmes for users of information in the workplace.

An active collaborative effort is needed by the government, information specialists, and information users if a better information literacy programme is to be implemented in academia. A good solution can be the imparting of information literacy to students through a mechanism closer to the National User Education Programme proposed by Anwar (1979, 1981) and Anwar and Naveed (2019). This programme should emphasize three aspects: 1) Creating awareness about the need for information literacy instructions among public and concerned authorities through national conferences, seminars, and launching a public awareness campaign using social and mass-media; 2) producing informational materials and making available services to be used for the education of information users; and 3) imparting information literacy instruction as such. In addition, the Pakistan Scientific and Technological Information Center and the Pakistan Science Foundation should collaborate to develop a national level information literacy programme for working scientists with the help of information professionals. The Higher Education Commission should undertake the development of a three credit hours undergraduate course exposing students to various aspects of information literacy (e.g., information skills, research skills, media literacy, information anxiety, critical thinking, information evaluation, and various types of information and communication technologies) and its integration in the existing curriculum for university students so that an information literate workforce may be prepared.

This research is a very initial step for understanding information literacy in the working environment and can be a worthy contribution in the existing literature, as there was a limited amount of literature on workplace information literacy. Further research can help to better understand the needs of scientists according to their subject fields and level of information literacy skills. Such studies may be conducted in other working environments for better understanding of the required skills and future needs for professional environments. These results, however, cannot be generalized as this research surveyed a limited number of working scientists from the Lahore unit of the Council. The conclusion drawn from this study needs to be strengthened with more studies. A nation-wide survey would help in better understanding of scientists’ information literacy self-efficacy.

Acknowledgements

Ms. Fariha Rafique is acknowledged for her help in data collection at PCSIR.

About the author

Muhammad Asif Naveed is currently working at Department of Information Management, University of Sargodha, Sargodha. He completed his PhD in the Department of Information Management, University of the Punjab in 2016. His research interests include: information behaviour; information literacy; information anxiety; information sociology; and information policy. Corresponding e-mail: masifnaveed@yahoo.com

How to cite this paper