See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235305981

Information barriers in libraries: Types, typologies and Polish

empirical studies

Article  in  Library Management · July 2011

DOI: 10.1108/01435121111158619

CITATIONS READS

6 729

1 author:

Marzena Świgoń
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn
70 PUBLICATIONS   170 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trend analysis and futures studies (foresight) / analiza trendów i studia nad przyszłością View project

Employability / zatrudnialność, potencjał zawodowy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marzena Świgoń on 25 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-5124.htm

Information
Information barriers in libraries: barriers in
types, typologies and Polish libraries
empirical studies
475
Marzena Świgoń
Department of Archive Studies, Library & Information Science, Received 8 November 2010
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (UWM), Olsztyn, Poland Revised 8 February 2011
Accepted 11 February 2011

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to describe the Polish empirical studies of information barriers.
The focus is to highlight the hierarchy of barriers, and the relation between demographic variables
(sex, age, discipline etc.) and perception of barriers.
Design/methodology/approach – After a deep literature review some empirical studies have been
conducted. Respondents were divided into groups in terms of: sex, field of study (social sciences,
human sciences, natural sciences and technical sciences), age, science degree and year of study. In
analysis of data two statistical methods: analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a chi-square test (x 2) were
used.
Findings – The phenomenon of information barriers is very common, encountered by around 80 per
cent of users. The most troublesome barriers were barriers connected with libraries. The study showed
that the sex variable had varied the respondents’ answers to the greatest extent. The women perceived
information barriers as a more serious problem than men (p , 0:001). With regard to types of
discipline, the faculty group found information barriers more troublesome in such disciplines as
humanities and social sciences than in natural or technical sciences (p ¼ 0:001).
Research limitations/implications – The hierarchy of barriers obtained from the study is related
to a particular environment, a given group of users, the equipment of home library.
Practical implications – Studies of this subject may prove valuable in identifying people that are
likely to experience difficulties in access to information.
Originality/value – The knowledge of the relation between demographic variables and perception
of barriers, in earlier literature, was fragmentary. Findings may lead to a better understanding of the
information barriers phenomenon by librarians and library users as well.
Keywords Information management, Libraries, Barriers, Anxiety
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Information barriers (or information limits) are obstacles to access to information.
Engelbert (1974) described them as manifestations (appearances) of the objective
reality which impede or prevent the flow of information from the generator or the
information system to the addressee. Haag (1989) found that information barriers arise
whenever there is a variance between the ideal and the actual accessibility to published
information. Information barriers are obstacles hindering, delaying or preventing
access to information, that is, information seeking, searching and using. Information Library Management
Vol. 32 No. 6/7, 2011
pp. 475-484
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
A version of this paper was originally presented at the QQML2010 Seminar in Chania, Crete, 0143-5124
Greece, 25-28 May 2010. DOI 10.1108/01435121111158619
LM barriers arise in the same context as information need, and are connected with personal
32,6/7 characteristics and micro- and macro- environmental conditions. Information barriers
(limits) have a negative influence on information need (can hinder their identification or
awareness) and information behaviour (Świgoń, 2006, 2011b).
The aim of the paper is to describe the Polish empirical studies of information
barriers, which have been conducted by the author for several years. These are library
476 users and internet users research (Świgoń, 2006, 2007) and library anxiety research
(Świgoń, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2011a). One of the author’s research aims is an attempt to
characterize and organize the extensive field of information barriers (Świgoń, 2006,
2011, in press). On the one hand the term information barriers is not commonly used,
thus impeding the search of relevant publications in this field. On the other hand the
literature mentions many different types of information barriers (called barriers,
barriers to access to information, information limits or simple variables) and provides a
number of possible typology schemes. In this paper the universal typology of
information barriers based on Wilson’s (1997) intervening variables has been
presented. Furthermore, other examples of typologies of barriers in libraries have been
cited. Library anxiety components is one of these examples. The author’s research on
development and validation of the new instrument measuring level of library anxiety
(Polish Library Anxiety Scale, P-LAS) were finished (Świgoń, 2011a).

2. Types and typologies of information barriers

2.1 Universal typology of information barriers
The proposal of universal typology of information barriers consists of four groups
(Świgoń, 2006, see also Świgoń, 2011b):
(1) Barriers connected with personal characteristics. Unawareness barrier, lack of
information skills, terminology barrier, foreign language barrier, lack of time,
psychological resistance to computer and internet use, psychological resistance
to asking question, barrier of educational level, passive attitude, barriers
connected with demographic variables: age, sex and other factors.
(2) Interpersonal barriers. Lack of help from people who are the source of primary
and secondary information.
(3) Environmental barriers. Legal barriers, financial barriers, geographical
barriers, political barriers, cultural barriers.
(4) Barriers connected with information resources. Libraries, internet or barriers
created by authors of information. This group can be divided into at least two
subgroups:
.
barriers in libraries – lack of resources in home library, unfriendly rules in
libraries, library’s delays, other barriers – inconvenient open hours,
arrangement and layout of the collection, poor advertisement of information
sources in libraries, library anxiety; and
.
barriers created by authors and publishers of primary and secondary
information – information overload, low quality of information, irrelevant
information, unfriendly information retrieval and searching tools, publishing
delay, domination of English language, other barriers, e.g. information not
published.
It is worth highlighting, that information barriers are often complexes of co-dependent Information
phenomena. For this reason it is impossible to distinguish between the varieties of their barriers in
forms and kinds. In other words barriers connected with libraries are not only these
from subgroup 4, they appear in all groups. To the above-mentioned typology one can libraries
categorise almost all kinds of information barriers cited in the research in the field of
library and information science from 1960s to today.
477
2.2 Typologies of barriers in libraries
Owing to limited place in this template, only selected examples of typologies of barriers
in libraries are presented below. One from the oldest concerns communications barriers
between inquirers and the reference staff. Mount (1966) mentioned, that all the possible
causes for poor communications between them could have been indicated –
psychological, intellectual, physical etc. He named nine detailed examples:
(1) an inquirer lacks knowledge of the depth and quality of the collection;
(2) an inquirer lacks knowledge of the reference tools available;
(3) an inquirer lacks knowledge of the vocabulary used by a particular set of tools;
(4) an inquirer does not willingly reveal his reason for needing the information;
(5) an inquirer has not decided what he really wants;
(6) an inquirer is not at ease in asking his question;
(7) an inquirer feels that he cannot reveal the true question because it is of a
sensitive nature;
(8) an inquirer dislikes reference staff members (or vice versa) and consequently
avoids giving a true picture of his needs; and
(9) an inquirer lacks confidence in the ability of the reference staff.

Mount described the role of the reference staff in detecting irrelevant questions as well
as some steps to help eliminate ambiguous and misleading questions.
Vanes (1993) wrote about problems associated with library use in broader context.
She pointed out a few categories of barriers: physical (distance, location, car-parking
facilities, visible plan indicating the floor layout, unfriendly complex cataloguing and
classification system, noise level, interior design), psychological (fears connected with
computers, image of the librarian, stereotypes about unapproachable librarians, users’
reluctance in asking for help), cultural (foreign language barrier, few multicultural
materials in public libraries) and social (low level of education).
Chacha and Irving (1991) mentioned four group of barriers to access to information
in libraries:
(1) Catalogue and bibliographic tools – problematic author search, confusing
subject and keyword search, journal entries omitted, time consuming searching
of abstracts, long wait for online searches.
(2) Organisation and management – single copy policy, binding and shelving
backlogs, numerous sequences of material, misfiled catalogue entries,
inadequate signs.
(3) Academic staff and curriculum – insufficient copies of texts, unclear
assignments, inadequate performance feedback, use of lecturers’ and friends’
LM materials, provision of reading lists, inability to distinguish between journal
32,6/7 and monograph citations.
(4) Library staff – unapproachable staff, referral of students to lecturers, low
expectations of users, ineffective library tours, missing or misfiled books,
concealed information office.

478 Westbrook (2003) reported three broad groups of barriers in information seeking,
library use and keeping up with relevant literature among faculty:
(1) Problems with information resources – information is hard to find and use;
information is of poor quality and coverage, information is of limited quantity;
information on the internet is unsatisfactory; information’s interdisciplinarity is
difficult; and information is overabundant.
(2) Problems with library information – collections and staff.
(3) Problems with self – actually doing and keeping up with research; learning how to
do and keep up with research; and managing information when in possession of it.

The phenomenon of library anxiety is related to information barriers in libraries, but

hitherto it was a subject of separate studies. Library anxiety is a multidimensional
construct, a set of uncomfortable feelings or emotional dispositions, experienced in a
library setting. Library anxiety consists of five elements:
(1) barriers with staff;
(2) affective barriers;
(3) comfort with the library;
(4) knowledge of the library; and
(5) mechanical barriers (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004).

These barriers may be categorized to abovementioned universal typology of

information barriers, nevertheless these five components are specific only in a library
setting, while information barriers have a broader meaning.

3. Empirical studies of information barriers

Empirical studies concerning information barriers consist of a great number of papers,
either devoted only to barriers or dealing with this subject in the context of other
topics, mostly information behaviour and information need. There are far more papers
that treat this matter only partially, therefore they have to be considered only as
stimuli to examine this phenomenon. One can only pinpoint two works which deal with
the wide spectrum of issues and attempt to form a method applicable to estimate the
size of information barriers (Haag, 1989; Świgoń, 2006). To measure the importance
(seriousness) of barriers, the most commonly used method was frequency (percentage
of target group experiencing the barrier). Rarely did researchers use alternative
methods (assessment scale). Haag (1989, p. 18) applied original formula for the
seriousness of barriers, which was compiled from its frequency, effect on the
acquisition of information, effect on the research project and on the trend of the barrier.
However, this method was time-consuming and complicated, thus, Haag used it only
for some barriers. It seems that a simpler and more comfortable way to estimate the
barriers’ size is to separate its frequency of occurrence from its size. The two Information
above-mentioned methods were used in Polish studies. barriers in
libraries
4. Polish empirical studies of information barriers
4.1 Studies of information barriers
4.1.1 Method. The biggest empirical studies within the scope of information barriers was
carried out among faculty and students of Warmia and Mazury University in winter 479
2003/2004, specifically among individuals involved in writing research proposals
(Świgoń, 2006). There were 1,200 questionnaires distributed, 896 were received (response
rate 74 per cent). The group of respondents consisted of 724 students and 172 faculty
members representing all 14 faculties of university. Respondents were divided into
groups in terms of: sex, field of study (social sciences, human sciences, natural sciences
and technical sciences), age (faculty: below 35, 36-45, 46-55, over 56 years old), science
degree (faculty: Master, PhD, Professor) and year of study (students in fourth and fifth
years). Proper studies were preceded by pilot studies.
The primary aim of the study was the characteristics of information barriers in the
academic environment:
.
the identification of barriers;
.
the arrangement of their hierarchy;
.
the exploration an effect of barriers on respondents’ work; and
.
the examination of relations between demographic variables (sex, age etc.) and
perception of barriers.

The identification consisted of finding out, which barriers (from the list) were
encountered by respondents. The hierarchy of barriers was created on the basis of two
methods: frequency (percentage of target group experiencing the barrier; %) and
seriousness of barriers (five-point scale: from “1 ¼ insignificant barrier” to “5 ¼ very
significant barrier”; average size M).
The starting-point to the characteristic of information barrier was finding out which
information sources were used by respondents, and how they assessed the access to
these sources. Further aims of investigation were to examine the respondents’
self-assessment of information skills; and to explore relations between self-assessment
and perception of barriers. Another goal was to determine the lists of variables which
could enhance the information seeking and searching.
Based on detailed analysis of literature and on results of pilot study the special
questionnaire was formed, the main part of which provided the list of 46 barriers
categorized to abovementioned universal typology. Other parts of the form consisted of
the list of information sources (primary, secondary, personal etc.), the list of possible
positive variables in the information searching process; and the question about
self-assessment of information skills.
4.1.2 Findings. As it turned out, the respondents’ satisfaction level of access to
information in academic library was moderate (faculty: 3.2; students: 2.9). The biggest
problem in the academic environment of Olsztyn was connected with access to primary
sources, journals and books, next conference proceedings and unpublished materials.
This is why the most important place for fulfilling respondents’ information needs
were other libraries in Poland (especially in the capitol – Warsaw, used by 30 per cent
LM respondents), not the university library. In second place were respondents’ own
32,6/7 collections and personal sources, only then home (academic) library collections. The
Internet was an important information source, as well, but as a secondary information
source, not primary (the most popular search engine was Google). Little interest within
the academic environment in bibliographies in paper and electronic form was
observed, only every second respondent used them. Likewise, only every third
480 respondent used national (apart from home library) and foreign library’ web sites.
In relation to information barriers there was a suggestion, that this phenomenon
was common, because was encountered by 74 per cent respondents. The investigation
has proved that the most frequently occurring barriers do not necessarily correlate
with the most troublesome/arduous ones. The most frequently encountered problems
in the academic environment constituted barriers connected with personal
characteristic and interpersonal barriers, they were encountered by over 82 per cent
of respondents. The least respondents, 65 per cent faculty and 52 per cent students,
experienced barriers created by authors and publishers of primary and secondary
information. However, the most troublesome barriers were barriers connected with
libraries (faculty: 3.5; students: 3.8). In second place were barriers in using internet
(faculty: 3.0; students: 3.4), and among faculty members environmental barriers (3.0) as
well. The smallest were, in relation to faculty, barriers connected with personal
characteristic (2.5), and to students, barriers connected with authors (2.3).
The most widely detailed problems (disregarding the overriding group) were: “lack
of source in home library” (faculty: 4.2; students: 4.1) and “in other libraries in Olsztyn”
(faculty: 3.7; students: 3.9), further “financial barriers” (faculty: 4.1; students: 4.4),
“technical problems with computers (old or few computers)” (faculty: 3.6; students: 3.9).
All results with average Mean (M) and frequency (%) are presented in Table I.
The hierarchy of barriers obtained from the study is related to a particular environment,
a given group of users, the equipment of home library. It comparison is valid only by
means of using the same tools (e.g. identical list of barriers). This paper focuses on
shedding the light on a more universal matter connected with the studies of barriers, as
well, i.e. variables’ influence on the perception of barriers. Studies of this matter may prove
valuable in identifying people that are likely to experience difficulties in access to
information, and may finally lead to a better understanding of information barriers.
The analysis of data collected from the study, by means of two statistical methods:
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a chi-square test (x 2), revealed strong correlation
between the perception of barriers by individuals and such variables like: sex, age,
discipline, science degree and the year of study. The knowledge of this scope in earlier
literature was fragmentary.
The study showed that the “sex variable” had varied the respondents’ answers to
the greatest extent. The results obtained from both groups of respondents, i.e. faculty
and students, illustrated that women perceived information barriers as a more serious
problem than men (p , 0; 001). With regard to types of discipline, the faculty group
found information barriers more troublesome in such disciplines as humanities and
social sciences rather than natural or technical sciences (p ¼ 0:001), whereas the
respondents from the group of students found information barriers the least onerous in
technical sciences, while the results concerning other sciences were very similar
(p ¼ 0:026). Another research (Świgoń, 2007) has shown that the phenomenon of
information barriers was less onerous for the students of library and information
 Information
Barrier M %
barriers in
I. Barriers connected with personal characteristic 2.5 82 libraries
1. Foreign language barrier 3.1 83
2. Lack of time; lack of regularity 2.8 87
3. Lack of sufficient preparation for information searching 2.8 85
4. Psychological resistance to asking questions 2.3 84 481
5. Passive attitude 2.2 80
6. Psychological resistance to using computer 2.2 81
7. Terminology barrier 2.2 77
II. Interpersonal barriers
Lack of help from other people (librarians, colleagues etc.) 2.9 83
III. Environmental barriers 2.7 69
1. Financial barriers 4.3 91
2. Geographical barriers 3.3 75
3. Legal barriers 2.6 69
4. Political barriers 1.6 58
5. Cultural barriers 1.6 55
IV. Barriers connected with information resources
IVA. Barriers in libraries 3.5 66
1. Lack of materials in home library (lack of purchase, subscription, single copy
policy, limited access to electronic full-text journal articles) 4.1 88
2. Lack of materials in other libraries in Olsztyn 3.8 74
3. Lack of materials in other libraries in Poland 3.5 43
4. Unfriendly rules/open hours 3.3 85
5. Insufficient advertising in libraries 3.3 55
6. Interlibrary delays/delays in libraries 3.2 54
IVB. Barriers created by authors and publishers of primary and secondary information 2.9 59
1. Publishing delay 3.3 48
2. Difficult access to not published materials 3.3 62
3. Lack of information/irrelevant information 3.0 60
4. Domination of English language 2.8 76
5. Information overload 2.4 65
6. Low quality of information 2.8 63
7. Unfriendly catalogues and databases 2.5 42
IVC. Barriers in using internet 3.1 68
1. Technical problems 3.7 74
2. Lack of information/irrelevant information 3.3 61
3. Low quality of information 3.3 69
4. Ineffective/unfriendly search engines 3.2 66
5. Information overload 2.9 76
6. Cost of links 3.1 67
7. Domination of English language on internet 2.8 73 Table I.
8. Transient documents 2.8 56 Information barriers in
opinion of UWM students
Source: Świgoń (2006) and faculty

science in comparison to other subjects. On account of employees’ scientific degrees,

one observed the following linear relation: the higher scientific degree the smaller sizes
of perceived barriers (p ¼ 0:025). The year of study had little influence on students’
answers. Students of the fifth year experienced more barrier-related issues than
LM students of the fourth year (p ¼ 0:008). Considering the age of academic workers, the
32,6/7 greatest differences in average values of barriers’ sizes were observed between the
group of the youngest and the group of the oldest university workers (p ¼ 0:041).
To sum up, the phenomenon of information barriers in the academic environment is
most troublesome for students and the youngest academic workers during the stage of
writing Master’s and Doctoral dissertations, whereas after habilitation it vastly
482 decreases. However, there are several exceptions to this rule that concern such types of
barriers as, psychological inhibition to use computerized databases. It is possible to
observe am almost linear relationship between the age of the worker and their
psychological resistance to use computers (p ¼ 0:002). The oldest workers experienced
the consequences of insufficient preparation to use electronic documents to the greatest
extent (p ¼ 0:125).
According to the findings, the negative effects of information barriers included:
delays in work (faculty – 67 per cent; students – 58 per cent), waste of time and effort
(respectively 70 per cent, 59 per cent), lower quality of work (38 per cent, 60 per cent),
unintentional duplication other work (11 per cent, 14 per cent).
Moreover, the investigations showed, how the academic environment assessed its
own information skills. The self-assessment of research workers was 3.5 and students –
3.3; this may not seem high relating individuals involved in writing research proposals.
This self-assessment was connected with the perception of some barriers. In the whole
group of respondents, negative correlation was found between the self-assessment and
the assessment of barriers connected with personal characteristics, i.e. the higher
self-assessment the lower a barrier’s size (employees: p ¼ 0:007, students: p , 0:001).
More correlations were found in group of students. Their self-assessment was correlated
(negatively) with perception of interpersonal barriers, barriers connected with authors
and barriers in using internet (p , 0:005), with an average of all barriers too (p , 0:001).
Moreover, the statistically significant correlation (positive) between the self-assessment
and assessment of access to electronic sources was found, the higher self-assessment the
easier access (employees: p ¼ 0:014, students: p ¼ 0:005).
Furthermore, research found that the most important variables enhancing the
information seeking and searching were: rich collection in home library (faculty – 4.4;
students – 4.7), active attitude in information-seeking behaviour (respectively 4.5; 4.5),
skills of effective electronic sources’ use (4.4; 4.4), effectiveness of interlibrary loans (4.1;
3.9), friendly rules in libraries (3.7; 3.9), help from other people, e.g. librarians (3.2; 3.9).

4.2 Studies of library anxiety

4.2.1 Method. The first empirical study of the subject of library anxiety in Poland
(Świgoń, 2002) were conducted in 2001 among 86 students of Polish Philology at UWM
(115 questionnaires distributed, response rate 80 per cent). The questionnaire consisted
of two parts:
(1) descriptive (student’s stories); and
(2) structured.

In part one (1), inspired by Mellon’s (1986) study, the students were asked to describe
their own points of view of their initial visit to an academic library. The object of the
analysis have been terms (relating or not relating to anxiety) used by students and
difficulties they encounter. The second part (2) consisted of five statements
corresponding with Bostick’s factors (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004), and the role of Information
respondents was to agree or disagree with them (five-point Likert scale; from barriers in
“1 ¼ strongly disagree” to “5 ¼ strongly agree”).
4.2.2 Findings. The first part (1) of the form (students’ own stories) showed (Table II) libraries
that students experienced a lot of difficulties, about 80 per cent mentioned it (barriers in
libraries). However, less than half of these stories, 41 per cent, contained terms like:
anxiety, fear, lost, tension, uncertainty, intimidating, embarrassing etc. Thus, the study 483
concluded that about 40 per cent of Polish students may be affected by some form of
library anxiety.
The second part (2) of the 2001 form resulted in the hierarchy of factors. In first place
there were: mechanical barriers, then, knowledge of the library, comfort with the library,
affective barriers and barriers with staff. Two years later, 2003, the second part of the
form (2) was filled in by 75 freshmen of technical studies at AGH-University of Science
and Technology in Krakow (Świgoń, 2004). One significant result came from comparison
(using the test chi-square) of the findings. The answers of two respondent groups were
statistically significantly different in relation to affective barriers (x 2 ¼ 28; 23;
p , 0:001) and mechanical barriers (x 2 ¼ 35:21; p , 0:001). In other words the study
established, that a subject of study might influence the perception of barriers.

5. Conclusion
The author’s own empirical research has found that the phenomenon of information
barriers is very common, encountered by around 80 per cent of users. The most
important barriers are connected with libraries, especially with the lack of materials
(books, journals, databases) in libraries (lack of purchase, subscription, single copy
policy, overdue title etc.). It is worth mentioning that the Polish government has just tried
to reduce this problem – since January 2010, has completely funded the Virtual Scientific
Library (www.wbn.edu.pl), with access to hundreds of world scientific journals.
Furthermore, the studies of library anxiety pointed out that this phenomenon occurs
among 40 per cent of surveyed library users. It is maybe not overwhelming, but library
anxiety really exists and needs further research. The author has suggested that in a
new library anxiety scale the 6th component – “resource anxiety” is necessary,
perhaps not only in Poland? Nevertheless, the new instrument to library anxiety
research is needed, because of the age the original LAS (1990s). In the new, up-dated
scale more attention was drawn to the contemporary electronic information age and to
distance library use as well (Świgoń, 2011a).

Type of barrier %

1 Lack of materials in academic library 44

2 Psychological barrier – feeling of anxiety, fear, shame, resistance to asking questions etc. 41
3 Problems in using online catalogues 25
4 Long time waiting for a book 20
5 Lack of help from librarian 13
6 Too few computers in library 8
7 Photocopying of materials was not allowed 7
8 Lack of knowledge of how to begin information seeking 7 Table II.
Barriers versus anxiety in
Source: Świgoń (2004) libraries
LM References
32,6/7 Chacha, R.N. and Irving, A. (1991), “An experiment in academic library performance
measurement”, British Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Engelbert, H. (1974), “Informationsbarrieren”, Informatik, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 51-4.
Haag, D.E. (1989), Information Barriers, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria.
Mellon, C. (1986), “Library anxiety: a grounded theory and its development”, College and
484 Research Libraries, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 160-5.
Mount, E. (1966), “Communication barriers and the reference question”, Special Libraries, No. 8,
pp. 575-8.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Jiao, Q.G. and Bostick, S.L. (2004), Library Anxiety: Theory, Research, and
Applications, The Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD and Oxford.
Świgoń, M. (2002), “Poszukiwanie informacji w bibliotece jako źródło niepokoju – badania wśród
studentów”, Praktyka i Teoria Informacji Naukowej i Technicznej, No. 1, pp. 12-19.
Świgoń, M. (2004), “Library anxiety – bariera informacyjna w bibliotekach akademickich”,
Nowoczesna Biblioteka Akademicka, Olsztyn, 20-21 maja 2004 r (EBIB Materiały
konferencyjne nr 9), available at: http://ebib.oss.wroc.pl/matkonf/nba/swigon.marzena.php
Świgoń, M. (2006), Bariery informacyjne – podstawy teoretyczne i próba badań w środowisku
naukowym, Wydawnictwo SBP, UWM, Warszawa, available at: www.ebib.info/2010/110/
a.php?swigon
Świgoń, M. (2007), “Bariery informacyjne – wyniki badań wśród studentów bibliotekoznawstwa
i innych kierunków studiów”, Praktyka i Teoria Informacji Naukowej i Technicznej,
Nos 3-4, pp. 3-12.
Świgoń, M. (2009), “Library anxiety: przegle˛d współczesnych kierunków badań”, Przegle˛d
Biblioteczny, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 313-24.
Świgoń, M. (2011a), “Library anxiety among Polish students: development and validation of the
Polish Library Anxiety Scale”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 144-50.
Świgoń, M. (2011b), “Information limits: definition, typology and types”, Aslib Proceedings,
Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 364-79.
Vanes, S.I. (1993), “Do you communicate?”, Library Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 19-23.
Westbrook, L. (2003), “Information needs and experiences of scholars in women’s studies:
problems and solutions”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 198-201.
Wilson, T.D. (1997), “Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective”, Information
Processing & Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 551-72.

Corresponding author
Marzena Świgoń can be contacted at: marzena.swigon@uwm.edu.pl

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats