User and service provider assessment of technology readiness of library commons in selected universities in Ghana Open Access

The academic libraries in Ghana have been rapidly expanding their implementation of ICT resources and services to better meet the information needs of their clients. The libraries are also expanding the physical spaces to promote modern information and service creation and delivery practices (Adzobu, 2014; Asamoah-Hassan and Bannerman, 2018; Bilson and Markwei, 2019; Chaddha and Kanjilal, 2022). The libraries are walking away from the individual workstation settings that characterized the conventional libraries; rather they are transforming into social work settings that involve integrated support systems instead of single-support delivery systems. Some of the universities have already implemented the use of whiteboards, and other technologies to foster interaction. They have created lectures and conference rooms where library users engage in personal and group work, seminars and others.

There are new efforts towards creating instructional rooms for lecturing, information technology pools and multi-media laboratories using projector screens; there are cafe stands, as well as soft sitting areas (Asamoah-Hassan and Bannerman, 2018; Bilson and Markwei, 2019). The new services include assistance with teaching and learning, writing, library research, numeracy and academic advisory support for students; instructional development assistance for faculty, technology-related services and media support services for both students and instructors (Antwi and Mensah, 2018; Amekuedee, 2005). This development has been studied by Garoufali and Garoufallou (2022), Perini and Roszkowski (2015) and Bettivia and Stainforth (2023).

The University of Ghana has designated three different spaces as knowledge commons for undergraduates, research commons for postgraduates and faculty commons for the faculty. The University of Cape Coast has a research commons space for postgraduates, a learning commons space for undergraduates, and a senior members space for the faculty and other senior members of the university community. The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) had separate spaces as research commons for postgraduates, faculty commons and learning commons for undergraduates. At the time of this investigation, the KNUST had collapsed two of these spaces into a single space known as research commons, leaving only the faculty commons as a separate space. It can therefore be observed that the idea of library commons has been developing, but most crucially, the institutions are using their discretions to experiment with the new development.

Besides the general embrace of information and communication technologies by libraries (Nwagwu and Matobako, 2021; Oliveira, 2018; Lihn, 2008; Lippincott and Skinner, 2022), the sprouting of commons in Ghanaian academic libraries is partly being promoted by the activities of the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Ghana (CARLIGH) through its role of facilitating the implementation of information technology expansion in the libraries. CARLIGH was formed in 2004 by heads of higher institutions and a group of Vice-Chancellors of the universities in Ghana who had visions of their universities becoming centres of excellence. The mission of CARLIGH is to make collective global information resources accessible to member libraries and to improve capabilities for teaching, learning and research through information technologies. The consortium organizes professional development training, international conferences, seminars, meetings and symposiums for knowledge, ideas and resource sharing; innovation and capacity building of its members. CARLIGH also plays the role of raising the awareness of the staff of the libraries about the current trends of information technology use in the libraries (Asamoah-Hassan and Bannerman, 2018).

According to Asamoah-Hassan and Bannerman (2018), CARLIGH has assisted member institutions in Ghana in negotiating for proprietary databases and organising training on the use of the databases. Asamoah-Hassan (2011) also observed evidence that members of the consortium are becoming more aware of technology developments, and are continuously working towards the achievement of total integration of information technologies into their activities. The consortium subscribes to electronic resources at consortium prices and does advocacy and marketing for electronic resource use. The consortium members also collaborate to learn from one another the new trends of the library profession and engage on how to upgrade their facilities, resources and services to meet the clients’ needs more efficiently. Also, the consortium has spurred individual universities to exploit the growing presence of information technologies according to their understanding and the personnel capacity available.

The library commons in the Ghanaian university libraries are emerging alongside the process of the institutions preparing and learning the details and implications of the phenomenon, including how to integrate the human, technology and non-technology material resources required to run them. The CARLIGH whose information technology projects in Ghanaian libraries largely account for the birth of the commons did not explicitly prioritize the creation of commons in their agenda. So, the commons are sprouting based on incidental effects from an information technology implementation project that revealed the opportunities for how to better meet the needs of library clients, and, the desire of the institutions and their leaders to conform to global practices. In their study, Daniels et al. (2010) presented library commons as a coordinated and extended set of study spaces with workstations that offer different options for personal study and collaborative group spaces.

The commons are truly emerging in Ghanaian academic libraries. However, there is a need to investigate the readiness of the commons. Do the commons’ operators and users express optimism and trust that the technology is facilitating efficiency in information service delivery? What are the system operators’ and commons users’ experiences, level of use, perceived availability of the learning resources and support services, as well as levels of satisfaction, with the library commons? As technology-induced resources, the commons could also be viewed as sources of, or consisting of discomforts arising from the disruption of traditional work systems, or overwhelming due to the increase in the workload occasioned by the adoption of new technologies. Information technology-induced commons in the library could also lead to some skepticism regarding the promises of improving human information experiences. Some recent studies on library commons deployed institutional analysis and development framework (Nwagwu and Matobako, 2021) have examined the commons from the perspective of community libraries in South Africa. Apart from the studies addressing the library commons that have not been conducted to address the library commons in Ghanaian libraries, these studies, including Daniels et al. (2010) did not examine the phenomenon from the perspective of technology readiness.

The purpose of this study is to examine commons users’ and library/commons’ operators’ assessment of the technology readiness of the library commons in selected universities in Ghana. This purpose is addressed by examining the following null hypotheses:

Here, the theoretical framework and the relevant literature are reviewed.

This study was designed and executed using the technology readiness framework. The concept of readiness was first introduced by Jacobson (1957). It is defined as the state, stages of preparedness, the plan and project implementation processes, and application of the tools and techniques to effect a change in an existing or new environment. Readiness encompasses vision, purpose, planning, funding, perceptions, material and human factors that may affect change when change is identified (Lippincott and Skinner, 2022), as it involves people, facilities, processes, equipment and records. Changing an old situation for the best requires weighing the new against the old, and a subsequent decision to adopt the new. Readiness is associated with change - the acceptance and adoption of recent phenomena in place of the old. The change element in readiness refers to the introduction of structural changes directed toward administration, procedures and the use of technology (Uddin, 2011). Technology use in library services refers to applying innovative skills in using technologies to meet library clients’ needs (UNESCO Institution for Lifelong Learning, 2022).

There are many types of readiness including change, technology, training and learning, institutional, systems, service and staff, and client/user readiness, and they are all intertwined. Technology readiness, used in this study, is the awareness and buildup of the individual’s confidence, positive attitudes and preparedness toward using new technologies. It is built on the optimism, innovativeness, discomfort and insecurity felt by users of new technologies (Lippincott and Skinner, 2022). Technology readiness encompasses all the organizational and psychological issues that arise due to the implementation of recent technologies. It encapsulates the complex issues related to how people embrace and use new technologies to accomplish their goals. The construct can also be viewed as an overall state of mind that results from a gestalt of mental enablers and inhibitors that determine one’s predisposition to use recent technologies (Holt et al., 2007, Miake-Lye et al., 2020, and Abubakar, 2020).

Technology readiness relates to the preparedness to effectively use modern technologies and new equipment, tools, devices and software. It relates to the readiness of a technology-oriented innovation, for instance, the library commons, to effectively deliver the services for which it was established. According to Parasuraman (2000), information technology-based products and services come along with them some opportunities, frustrations and challenges, and examining these issues is required to understand how ready the facilities are. How well the users of an innovation evaluate the facilities, and how well the managers of innovations perform in service delivery will be a good indication of embrace or rejection of the innovation (Bernerth, 2004).

Technology readiness has been used in the study of various aspects of the library. For instance, Chaputula and Mutula (2018) have studied the readiness of libraries in Malawi to use mobile phones in the provision of library and information services. They found that the institutions did not have operational ICT policies to govern the operations of library and information services offered through mobile phones although draft ICT policies were available. They concluded that though the human resources required to manage the provision of library and information services through mobile phones in the institutions studied were available, they did not have the necessary skills and numbers to provide quality services. Ocholla and Ocholla have conducted the readiness of academic libraries in South Africa to research, and manage teaching and learning in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Ocholla and Ocholla, 2020) have studied the readiness of academic libraries in South Africa to research, teaching and learning support in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The concept of technology readiness has even been used to study librarians themselves as in the study by Shonhe (2019),

There exist many models for studying technology readiness. This present study was based on Parasuraman’s (2000) model (please see Figure 1). This model has four main dimensions which can be classed as positive or negative attitudes of the users and managers.

They are (1) optimism – the trust that the technology will facilitate increased control, flexibility and efficiency (2) innovativeness – the tendency of the technology users and operators to embrace the technology and use it. (3) Discomfort – perceived as the lack of control which users and implementers may have over the technology use and the feeling of being overwhelmed while (4) insecurity, associated with distrust and skepticism about the capacity of technology to work with ease. These four dimensions can be addressed from both the manager and user perspectives. Optimism and innovation are contributors to technology readiness, while discomfort and insecurity are inhibitors.

A commons can be defined as the shared resources that are either inherited or co-created by a community or group of stakeholders and managed according to the rules and values made by the community (Liljander et al., 2006; Hess and Ostrom, 2006; Bilson and Markwei, 2019; Lippincott and Skinner, 2022). Commons describes how the gifts of nature that cannot be arrogated to individual ownership, for example, oceans, wildlife; and shared social creations such as libraries, public spaces, scientific research and creative works, could be used for the optimum benefit of the society (Halperin, 2020). Commons can be further illustrated thus: humans may own water collection in a territory (for instance), but all humans co-own the earth and the water. Several gifts of nature cannot be split for individual arrogation of ownership, for example, air. They consist of the things created and inherited jointly for the future generations comprised nature’s gifts, such as the air, oceans, wildlife and shared social creations such as libraries, public spaces, scientific research and creative works. Some commons resources are bestowed to us by nature, while others are the product of collaborative human creativity (Walljasper, 2011). There are various types and categories of commons; a certain category identifies the environmental resource, cultural and intellectual commons, digital commons, urban commons and knowledge commons (Janssen, 2022).

The idea of the commons has been applied in many scenarios, including human knowledge, information, Internet services and the World Wide Web browsers, among others. Except when packaged, knowledge assets for scientific research are considered a commons of human heritage, be it at the individual, academic disciplines, or other levels (Liljander et al., 2006; Dedeurwaerdere et al., 2016). Several studies in recent years mentioned variations of the World Wide Web as commons, with a typical example of Carlson (2021). Commons also describes how access to knowledge is created to ensure that information resources are available and that researchers, students and other public do not incur unnecessary costs to use or read information resources. This stream of opinions conforms to the current open revolution, such as free access, open educational resources, open government and open learning. The library has been a support system for the knowledge community and a store of human knowledge and wisdom in the learning sphere. The commons concept has been recognized in the field of library and information studies (Kranich, 2019).

Commons in the library has been variously described, but not exclusively, as information commons, learning commons, knowledge commons and research commons. These different labels always cause many digressions from their purpose and use (Lippincott and Skinner, 2022; Smith, 2011). But Harland (2011) believes that the terminologies are mere semantics and that they all describe learning spaces in academic libraries. The functions, attributes and use of the various commons are not too different (Turner et al., 2013). Regardless of the type or form, the commons provides centralized information services and assistance to meet the broader academic community’s teaching, learning and research needs (Turner et al., 2013; Bilson and Markwei, 2019; Class, 2022). The advent of library commons means that the services of academic libraries have changed due to the adoption and implementation of innovative technologies that have enhanced the profession (Lippincott and Skinner, 2022; Class, 2022). The changing needs of information in the digital era, new ways of learning, and conducting research challenge academic library staff to move to the digital world of new service models for the relevance of services.

Many academic libraries are transforming their services to the current information access, retrieval and dissemination trends with technologies (Nwagwu and Matobako, 2021). As a result, most academic libraries are making provisions for more collaborative spaces of learning and instructions, study rooms, fast Internet connectivity and remote access to digital information within the digital space of information storage, access, retrieval, dissemination and use. The evolvement of the learning commons concept in academic libraries has resulted in a trend towards flexible designs and interactive spaces for collaborative learning. Both faculty and students contribute and benefit from knowledge creation and the dissemination process (Kent and Lankes, 2019; Liu and Li, 2019; Shao et al., 2020). The present-day learning environment has improved with the new technology use trends, giving different faces and attributes of the learning commons to the present-day academic environment (Bilson and Markwei, 2019; Class, 2022; Deng et al., 2021). The resources required in a library Learning Commons range from the physical space with equipment, electronic resources and the online/cyberspace of interconnected digital and global technology environment which makes use of the World Wide Web, Universal Resource Locators and Search Engines through the internet Protocol. According to Oliveira (2018), the new academic library model is featured in four categories: technology, spaces, digital media/online collections and professional librarians/technology experts.

The library commons’ services include general provision of information to users with technology use training for teaching, learning and research activities. Improvement of technology use in the information services profession and the quest for assistance to modern-day technology applications required by the library staff in the professional delivery of duties brought to bear the following services provided by the learning commons’ staff. The major services are Information literacy training for life-long learning, Literature searching, Electronic Document Delivery, Digital support services, Selective Dissemination of Information and General reference-oriented service. Others are support for the use of web 2.0 social media tools, Information Communication Technology training, Reprography Service, Support of research in all fields of endeavour, Digital Humanities and digital tools training, Provision of Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC) and Technical service.

Library commons has several benefits. Technology has the potential to promote global and cultural understanding by connecting people from around the world and facilitating globalization. This can lead to greater appreciation and understanding of other cultures and societies. Collaboration is a key benefit of technology in library commons, allowing faculty and students to work together more easily and effectively. This can lead to better teaching, learning and research outcomes. Technologies can increase productivity and efficiency in the library commons, allowing for faster access to information and solutions to problems. Collaboration through shared resources is made easier through the use of technology in library commons, allowing for the co-creation of knowledge and ideas in a secure and valued environment. Technology allows for more efficient use of information, which in turn facilitates knowledge creation and sharing (Mohd Ismail and Kassim, 2021; Wong and Chu, 2021; Kim and Yoo, 2022).

Technology can enhance research and research output by facilitating easier access to information, which can reduce stress and effort for researchers. Use of technology and innovations in library services can enhance student learning and scholarly work, enabling more efficient and faster access to information (Musante, 2020; Bennett and Cameron, 2021). Innovativeness in the use of technology is a positive attitude towards technology, which can lead to becoming a pioneer and leader in new technology use. An optimistic approach to technology is important for library staff and users, as it can lead to increased control, flexibility and efficiency in the information services profession. Keeping abreast of current issues in technology is important for libraries to maintain an optimistic, innovative and accepting attitude towards emerging technologies (Ruppel and Carter, 2019; Fister, 2019; Simons, 2020).

The adoption of learning commons is confronted with several challenges that hinder its adoption (Yoo and Song, 2015; Nwagwu and Matobako, 2021). These challenges include the refusal of library staff to work with the library’s vision and mission, failure to involve key players in the change process, lack of awareness about the need for change, resistance to change, lack of continuous professional development training, lack of physical space within the library environment, lack of creativity of library staff, lack of knowledge about new technologies and innovations, insecure attitudes towards technology, discomfort in using technology and insufficient funds. To overcome these challenges, it is essential to involve all key players in the change process, create awareness about the need for change and its benefits, provide continuous professional development training, and ensure adequate funding for the project (Baudino and Auster, 2018; Kim and Song, 2019; Odabasi and Çetin, 2014).

Scharf and Hulbert (2015) explored the concept of the library as a commons, in which the shared ownership and stewardship of library resources and spaces is emphasized. The authors discuss how digital technologies are changing the ways in which libraries operate as commons, and argue that libraries should embrace new models of community engagement and collaboration. They went further to discuss the possible technology issues libraries may face on their way to implementing library commons. Chang and Chao (2016) assessed the readiness of academic libraries in Taiwan for the digital age, focusing on their technology infrastructure, staff competencies and service offerings. They utilized a survey to gather information on the technological infrastructure and services provided by the libraries, as well as the attitudes and perceptions of librarians towards digital technologies. They found that academic libraries in Taiwan are generally well-prepared for the digital age, with most libraries offering a range of digital services such as online databases, e-books and online reference services. However, they also identifies some areas where improvement is needed, such as increasing access to digital resources and improving the digital literacy of library users.

Another study by Kumar (2017) examined the concept of the library as a commons in the context of open data. The study was based on a pilot project conducted at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Library, which aimed to promote open data sharing and collaboration among researchers. They created a data repository and provided training and support for researchers to share and access open data, and evaluated the opinions of the researchers. The article’s intent was describe the design and implementation of the project, as well as the challenges and opportunities they encountered in implementing the project. They argued that the library can play a key role in facilitating open data sharing and collaboration by serving as a commons – a shared space where researchers can access and contribute to a common pool of resources. They also discussed the potential benefits of open data sharing, such as increasing the visibility and impact of research, promoting collaboration and innovation and enhancing the reproducibility and transparency of research.

Lai’s (2018) study examined how public libraries could serve as key resources to address the digital divide and promoting digital equity. The study first discussed the concept of digital inclusion and the challenges individuals and communities face regarding lack access to digital technologies and skills. Lai averred that the library commons can play a critical role in alleviating these challenges through the provision of access to digital resources and technology, and the offering of digital literacy training and support as well as promoting community engagement and participation. Finally, the study buttressed his case with studies in the United States that have implemented digital inclusion initiatives. These projects provide free Wi-Fi, offer computer training and access to digital tools and also partner with community organizations to address local digital divide issues.

A recent article by Yang et al. (2023) addressed the relationship between the library commons and technology readiness in academic libraries. The study is based on a survey of academic libraries in South Korea, which was designed to gather information on the extent and nature of the library commons and technology readiness in these libraries. The survey measured several key dimensions of technology readiness, including technological infrastructure, digital resources and services, and digital literacy training and support. They aimed to explore the role of the library commons in promoting technology readiness in academic libraries, and to identify the factors that contribute to the development of technology readiness in library commons. The study provided a conceptual framework for understanding the library commons and technology readiness, drawing on the literature from library science, information technology and management. The framework emphasizes the importance of the library commons as a shared space where users can access and contribute to a common pool of resources, and highlights the role of technology readiness in supporting and enhancing the effectiveness of the library commons.

Hooper and Connaway (2020) proposed a framework for digital transformation in academic libraries, based on a review of recent literature and case studies of libraries that have successfully implemented digital transformation initiatives. The framework includes five key components: leadership and strategy, technology and infrastructure, services and programs, staff development and training and user engagement and outreach. Ramdeen and Borrego (2021) reviewed recent literature on the role of academic libraries in supporting and advancing open science. The authors examined the various ways in which academic libraries can contribute to open science initiatives, such as by providing access to open data, supporting research data management, and facilitating collaboration and knowledge sharing among researchers. Carvalho et al. (2021) presents an empirical study of citizens’ perceptions of libraries as third places in smart cities. The authors conducted a survey of library users in Portugal to assess their perceptions of the library as a third place and its potential role in supporting smart city initiatives. The study found that libraries can play a valuable role in promoting social inclusion, community engagement and digital literacy in smart cities.

The literature review provides valuable insights into technology readiness of library users and library service providers, focusing on dimensions such as optimism, innovativeness, discomfort and insecurity. However, the review did not discuss alternative theoretical frameworks or critiques of the technology readiness model, limiting the reader’s understanding of its broader applicability. Additionally, the review could benefit from a more critical analysis of the empirical studies cited, such as their methodologies, limitations and implications for practice. The discussion on library commons offers a comprehensive overview of its meaning, benefits and challenges, but it could be enhanced by exploring contradictory perspectives or unresolved issues in the literature. However, the integration of diverse voices, including those from different cultural contexts or marginalized communities, enriched the engagement on the subject.

This study was based on a mixed methods approach, namely quantitative and qualitative approaches together. The essence of the quantitative approach was to determine the main characteristics of the library commons users regarding their opinions about the technology readiness of the library commons. The qualitative approach was directed at two senior library officers in each of the three universities, and the aim was to survey the opinions of the librarians regarding the technology readiness of the libraries they manage. The research design was a survey type and the approaches were concurrently administered; the study was conducted with a questionnaire and an interview schedule respectively.

Table 1 shows that the libraries have 430 users of the commons, from which a sample of 157 was selected using proportional-to-size sampling.

Relative to the population, the sample size is considered large enough to take care of any sampling errors. For the qualitative aspect, the libraries have a total size of 25 librarians, but we studied three directors of the libraries and three commons heads, purposively chosen because of the critical roles they play in the commons.

The variables in the questionnaire and interview schedule were developed by the researcher based on the Technology Readiness Model (TRM) (Parasuraman, 2000). The instruments were pretested and validated with the expertise of four selected members of the science community in two universities in Ghana. The four main concepts in the TRM are innovativeness, optimism, discomfort and insecurity and attitudes as external variables. The researchers first briefly described these concepts highlighting our perspective of technology readiness and asked the professors to suggest questions/variables that could guide the study. The result of the pretest was instrumental to the development of the questionnaire and interview schedule.

Section A: Background information of the respondents - university/library of affiliation, gender, age, status, category/level and years of using the commons as a student, faculty, or staff of the university. Section B addressed the question of perceived levels of availability of commons’ facilities, learning resources and support services. Section B also inquired about the perceived levels of availability of the commons facilities, learning resources and support services to ascertain whether certain facilities, learning resources and support services expected of the commons are available. The section also ascertained whether it is efficient and effective using the commons and whether the resources are useful, adequate and satisfactory to users’ expected needs.

Section C: Determine the users’ assessment opinions about the readiness of the commons concerning roles of computers, software and search engines; hands-on information and communication technology training in person or one organized by the commons; ascertained how the users use the commons and their expectations from the commons in learning and research. Section D: Determine the users’ experiences, benefits and challenges in using the new technologies in the commons. Does the user experience, the transformation in teaching, learning and research, fast access to information and easy connection with people for collaboration and enhancement among researchers? Are there information professionals and experts to perform supporting research services? All the variables were developed based on TRM (Parasunaram, 2000). A five-level Likert scale guided the measurement of the variables.

The interview schedule is itemized in Box 1. The schedule followed the format of the questionnaire, the difference being its focus on library/commons officers and also the expectation of a narrative.

The schedule contained a section for the demographic characteristics of the interviewees, completed by the interviewees.

This research was undertaken in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Survey Monkey to conduct a questionnaire survey, and Zoom for the interviews. We mailed the questionnaire to respondents and stopped the process of following up when we had 157 responses. For the interviews, we engaged the six library officers in a discussion individually and at different but mutually agreed times, guided but not limited by the issues in the schedule. This study deployed literature from both national and international environments to increase the validity of the literature review which serves as a guide for appropriately developing the content of the questionnaire. For the reliability of the questionnaire scales, Cronbach’s alpha was used to ensure the internal consistency of the scales.

In analysing and presenting the result, the plan was to pay more attention to quantitative data and only reflect the opinions of the library/commons officers. The quantitative data were analysed using non-linear factor analysis approaches after the data was prepared. The data analysis was undertaken with SPSS 22; confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with CFA, while AMOS 23 was used for structural equation modelling. The analysis was possible through various compromises of data preparation, measurements, formal hypotheses construction and sampling among others. The seven latent constructs consisted of 22 variables Factor analysis was necessitated by the overlapping nature of the variables. One of the most recommended approaches for performing this task is the Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a component of Factor Analysis - the oldest and best-known technique of multivariate data analysis. It was first coined by Pearson and developed independently by Hotelling in 1933. PCA is used to reduce the dimensionality of datasets to yield a new but smaller dataset that retains much of the statistical information (or variability) in the original dataset.

PCA identifies the principal components which are usually fewer new variables. These few variables would represent the maximal variation in the entire original variables. The new variables are linear functions of the variables in the original dataset. However, the new variables should not be correlated with one another other so that they can be considered good candidates for multivariate analysis. Usually, PCA first isolates the common variance that is shared by all the variables in the original data set and then isolates the variance that each of the variables in the dataset shares with each of the rest of the variables. The resulting = statistic that is known as communality. The first principal component accounts for the largest variability in the original set, and the succeeding components will account for some of the remaining variability. PCA also usually isolates the factor loadings or the correlation between each of the original variables and the factors. Varimax rotation was used for the analysis to clarify the concepts; the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy test was deployed to ascertain the appropriateness of the observed variables. The average variance explained was used to isolate the proportion of variation explained by each variable, and the communalities. In this study, the KMO measure of sampling adequacy test accounted for 75.2%, which was greater than the 60% recommended by Hair et al. (2010).

Table 2 shows that the seven extracted factors accounted for 74.1% of the total variance and they all have eigenvalues that range from 1 to 6.

Table 2 shows the seven variables grouped according to the average variance they explained. Usually, the decision process is to include in the final analysis only those variables (in this case variables 1 to 5) whose variances sum up to 50%. The communalities (see Table 4) reveals the exact variables.

Usually, variables that have high communalities will be better predictors because variations among variables are good attributes of good predictors. Table 3 shows the communalities for each of the 22 variables in the study. It can be seen that “RUC7: I am ready to use the commons with electronic resources training organized by the library, and, RUC8: I am ready to use the commons with electronic resources training organized.

By the library” have the highest communalities, h² = 0.871. Others that fall within the five in Table 3 are ECU2: “The commons has transformed my learning”, h² = 0.864, ECU2: “The commons has transformed my learning”, h² = 860, and, UPC3: “I perceive the common is useful to me”, h² = 860. The lowest communality, ASS10: “General reference-oriented services are available in the commons” (h² = 0.621) has an adequately high communality acceptable for higher statistical analysis. The interviews were analysed narratively, and they constituted a reflective but critical source of information about the opinions of the library officers/commons heads.

Most of the respondents (68%) were males (see Figure 1), 60% were between 21 and 30 years old, and, 28% were between 31 and 40 years old. Most of the respondents (95.5%) were students, and six respondents were faculty, and one respondent was a teaching assistant. Most of the student respondents (59%) were postgraduates. The teaching assistant was a national service staff, while three of the postgraduate students were the administrative staff (see Table 4).

The study deployed hypothesis testing to establish the relationships among the variables and used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to validate the outcomes.

Pooled-CFA for the seven latent constructs was conducted. Figure 2 presents the result. The model consists of seven First-Order Constructs, which are: (1) User’s Perceptions of the Commons (UPC), (2) Availability of Learning Resources of the Commons (ALR), (3) Satisfaction Levels of the Commons (SLC), (4) Available Support Services (ASS), (5) Users’ Experience of the Commons (ECU), (6) Readiness of the Commons (RUC), (7) Use of the Commons (UC).

Model fit Indices: p < 0.0001, χ2 = 396.867, df = 188, X²/df = 2.111, GFI = 0.819, AGFI = 0.757, RMSEA = 0.084 (0.073–0.096), TLI = 0.849, CFI = 0.877, RMR = 0.079; SRMR = 0.078.

Based on Kline’s (2005) recommendation, four goodness of fit indices: chi-square (χ²), mean-square residual (SRMR), standard root mean approximation (RMSEA) with 90% confidence interval, and comparative fit index (CFI) were used to assess the model fit. According to Kline (2005), RMSEA <0.10, CFI = 0.90 and SRMR <0.10 are generally considered favourable. Thus, the model fit indices: χ² = 396.867, df = 188, RMSEA = 0.084(0.073–0.096), CFI = 0.877 and SRMR = 0.078 show that the model is acceptable.

• (a) Construct reliability

Table 5 shows that each construct has an estimate of CR > 0.60 as recommended by Zainudin (2015). Thus, all the constructs are adequately reliable.

• (b) Convergent validity

This was assessed using Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Table 6 shows that five constructs have an AVE value of 0.50 and above, while two constructs have an AVE value of slightly less than 0.50, but all the constructs have factor loadings >0.50. According to Hair et al. (2010), standardized factor loadings of 0.50 or higher indicate convergent validity of a construct. Hence, the convergent validity of the constructs was acceptable.

• (c) Discriminant validity

This was first assessed using Zainudin’s (2015) recommendation. Zainudin (2015) equally says the discriminant validity of the measurement model is established if the correlation between constructs is not >0.85. Figure 2 shows that the inter-correlations of different constructs are <0.85. Secondly, the discriminant validity was further assessed using Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) recommendation that discriminant validity is established if the inter-correlations of constructs are less than the square root of their AVE. As shown in Table 6, the square root of the AVE (in bold) for each latent construct was higher than its correlation with other constructs. Hence, the discriminant validity of the constructs was acceptable.

The normality of data was assessed using AMOS 23. The skewness of the data falls within −1.476 to −0.402, while kurtosis falls within −0.067 to +4.053, and all were within the acceptable limit recommended by Byrne (2013), the acceptable cut-off point for kurtosis of between ±2.0 and ± 7.0. From the Mahalanobis d-squared estimated by AMOS, just six outliers with p values < 0.001 (recommended by Kline (2005) were identified. Nevertheless, since the outliers were valid scores, they were kept and involved in the analysis for adequate representation of the sample size.

Table 7 presents the hypothesized paths of the CFA model, showing the correlations between variables. The standardized coefficients reflect the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variables. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to generate the estimates. The null hypotheses (H0) were rejected at p ≤ 0.05.

Table 8 presents the summary of the hypotheses testing. The Remark column indicates if the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected or accepted based on the significance of the p-value. A null hypothesis (H0) was rejected if p < 0.05, and alternative hypotheses were accepted otherwise.

Table 8 shows that none of the null hypotheses was accepted. A significant relationship exists between all the pairs of technology readiness variables. However, despite the rejection of the null hypotheses, the low correlation values, (except for hypothesis three relating to the levels of availability of learning resources of the commons and satisfaction levels which is moderate), suggest that other factors than the readiness variables in this study or better management of the variables might be required to improve user assessments.

The six interviewees have worked in libraries for 5–15 years, but they have worked in the commons for 6 years or above. They were aged 41–50 years. Three of the participants play oversight and management roles, another three do training and research support and four provide information technology support services. All of them are involved in policy and decision-making, budgeting and project management, and do training and research support. The respondents reported that they have positive attitudes toward the commons, and in the handling of the challenges that arise; a few opinions expressing negative feelings occurred. The positive attitudes include learning and picking up challenges with innovations; their attitudes could be described by the words they used themselves: patient, relaxed, normal, friendly, lovely and collaborative. The negative attitude reported was associated with that embarrassment when there was evidence of a lack of adequate knowledge and expertise about the needs in the commons and agitations from colleagues about issues in the commons. The availability of some electronic resources such as Mendeley software, Turnitin, databases, functional photocopying machines, institutional repository, the efficiency of access by people in remote locations to the resources, and management of the discussion rooms, among others, were the issues the librarians would want to see operational in their commons. One of the university librarians explained that there was initially no space for the commons, but that the university had to rent a space.

One of the respondents played a lead and significant role in the setting up of the commons in his university, and he was excited about it. He said, “I collaborated with the Graduate Students Association of Ghana (GRASAG) to establish the commons. We identified a place and used available computers. I wrote a proposal for financial support from the university”. Another university librarian reported that, in the course of setting up their commons, he conducted investigations and made a study tour of two other Ghanaian universities’ commons. Afterward, the respondent “… wrote a concept paper and a proposal that was defended and approved and funded”. The third university librarian explained that his predecessor initiated the ideas for the commons. Upon connections with some international bodies, a proposal was sent to the Carnegie Corporation of New York for financial support. Delegates from this university also visited commons in South Africa to learn how they built and manage their commons.

The three libraries reported that they have some facilities and resources such as spaces, information systems, networks and Internet connectivity, with Internet and external support that informed readiness of the implementation of the commons. But a librarian observed that the commons’ needs evolve by the day, as new technologies emerge. The university library of KNUST-PII-L also reported having available facilities, resources and internal support as an indication of the readiness of the commons. The university library of UG-B-L had readily available spaces, resources, Internet connectivity and external support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York that informed the readiness of the commons.

On feelings, attitudes, perceptions and expectations of the commons, the preponderance of reference to technology was mainly positive: “I am happy to work in such a technology-oriented has helped me to learn a lot in technology which I did not know before. Learning to use the technologies has also been a lot of encouragement” (UL-UG). According to CS-KNUST, the commons has been “A different working environment which requires extensive training to use the facilities. There was a kind of nervousness during the initial time. New technologies keep coming anyway, but we are coping as we are getting used to the idea of new ways of doing things”. Referring to work, “The facilities are not adequate making work expectations not to be met. Breakdown of air conditioners. Resources and services are adequate” (CHA-UCC).

According to CS-UG “There is no sufficient space available, the space used was on rent and we took over after the rent expired. UL-UCC said “The concept of the commons and implementation are a fine, welcoming, comfortable and serene learning environment. The graduate school bought water dispensers to support the facilities. Water is allowed but we make sure that they are handled with care. Foods and soft drinks are not allowed”. The involvement of CHA-UG in the building of his institution’s commons excited her “I was surprised at my appointment as one of the staff selected few to work in the research commons when it was inaugurated, but I felt very good because I was one of the key staff involved in the planning, proposal writing, reporting and arrangement of the new space. I initially labelled the place as the postgraduate study area, within which we had a social learning space with television. A feeling of being unclear of what the place was going to be”.

Using what is available as a strategy of one of the librarians “We do not have to adapt everything that others do. In my leadership, I tried to get what is already available. We bought what we could buy and had some open sources. Assisted learning systems are being worked on. The space was available but not convenient so we have to do some portioning. Some work was done about the space. It was previously used for other purposes and we changed their use for the commons” (UL-UCC). Also “Finances and funding was a difficulty. The university only releases funds yearly. Our budget of 1. 5 million Cedis could not help if we should rely on it alone. We got the University to provide additional funds aside from the budget. The chancellor of the university provided additional funding. The College of Distance Education provided some funds, including about four or five sponsors” (CHA- KNUST). This is the line of opinions of many of the respondents in respect of the availability of resources.

Similarly, the respondents informed that some of the commons staff were “… not ready, inadequately ready, no technology knowledge, low technology knowledge, some learned on the job, while a few had computer competences”. Issues that were mentioned included “… experience, basic technology knowledge, motivation for technology change, self-tutelage on online courses in information technology, the joy of work, technology courses, programmes, orientations, seminars, and training”. Most of the university library staff of KNUST-PII-L were not ready and had insufficient knowledge of computer use. Most university library staff of UCC-SJ-L were self-motivated to use the new technologies with self-tutelage. In contrast, most of the university library staff UG-B-L learned on the job through orientation and training with basic technology ideas.

The purpose of the research was to investigate the commons users’ and system operators’ assessment of the maturity of selected Ghanaian university/academic library commons. Concerning the availability of resources, there are a few differences among commons in university libraries. But they mentioned workstations, whiteboards, markers, 24/7 Internet access and remote access connectivity, among others. The technologies include desktop and laptop computers, electronic resources, research guides, remote access services, live chat and research data management software. The users were more inclined to report the availability of online information resources: Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC), Institutional Repository (IR), Electronic databases (e-books/e-journals) and Open Access/Proprietary based resources, etcetera), among others (h² = 0.723). Other highlighted available resources are software such as data analysis (R/SPSS), application packages such as Adobe pdf reader, Microsoft Office application, ABBYY FineReader, NVivo 10, ATLAS.ti) and plagiarism checks (Turnitin) (h²⁼0.682). The facilities are not altogether different from those mentioned by Daniels et al. (2010) about the University of Cape Town learning commons and Nwagwu and Matobako (2021). Bilandzic and Foth (2013) and Asamoah-Hassan and Bannerman (2018) also considered these resources as necessary to achieve the idea of the library as a co-work space.

In respect of support services, the institutions employed information technology experts to support the implementation of the commons. The available support services such as literature searching, research, use of the OPAC, email access, online booking and reference management software - Mendeley, Endnote and Turnitin for plagiarism checks. Other support services include face-to-face and online training, administration and staff management, and awareness creation. Also, there are biometric registration, installations, troubleshooting, in-person and email response inquiries, reprographic services, office suits, lending laptops, live chat and specialized subject librarianship services. The study found that most learning resources and support services needed to satisfy the commons’ goal of using present-day information technologies are adequately provided. Regarding the availability of support services, the users reported current awareness services as the most available support in the commons (h² = 643), followed by the availability of subject specialists (h² = 0.643).

The statistical analysis further yields insightful findings regarding the relationships between various factors within the library commons environment. Firstly, the rejection of the null hypothesis concerning the availability of learning resources and users’ experience the presence of adequate learning resources within the commons positively influences users’ perceptions and interactions with the space. It indicates that well-stocked commons are more likely to cater to users’ needs effectively, enhancing their overall experience. Similarly, the rejection of the null hypothesis regarding the relationship between the availability of learning resources and the actual use of the commons emphasizes the significance of resource availability. When learning resources are readily accessible, users will be more inclined to utilizing the commons for their academic endeavours. The finding also underscores the pivotal role of resource availability in driving user engagement and utilization of library spaces.

The rejection of the null hypothesis pertaining to the availability of learning resources and satisfaction levels within the commons underscores the impact of resource provision on user satisfaction. Users are more likely to be satisfied with the commons environment when it offers adequate learning resources; fulfilling users’ informational needs within the commons contributes significantly to their overall satisfaction with the library facilities. The rejection of the null hypothesis regarding the availability of support services and users’ experience of the commons, supported, highlights the importance of support services in shaping users’ perceptions. Furthermore, the rejection of the null hypothesis concerning the relationship between support service availability and the readiness of the commons, emphasizes the critical role of support services in fostering users’ preparedness to engage with the commons. This indicates that comprehensive support services enhance users’ readiness to utilize the commons effectively, thereby promoting active participation and engagement.

Also, the rejection of the null hypothesis regarding the relationship between readiness to use the commons and actual usage underscores the significance of users’ readiness in driving their utilization of library spaces. Users who feel adequately prepared or inclined to utilize the commons are more likely to do so, highlighting the importance of promoting users’ readiness through effective support and resources. Finally, the rejection of the null hypothesis concerning the use of the commons, users’ perceptions and satisfaction levels underscores the interconnectedness of these factors. Users’ actual usage of the commons influences their perceptions and overall satisfaction levels, indicating the importance of meeting users’ needs and expectations within the library environment.

The commons staff mentioned that they need training and orientation to use the facilities and resources for user support services. It was ascertained that the libraries offer continuous user support training sessions. There was an open session, information dissemination and awareness creation in the commons for both staff and users before the commons were opened to the public. The training and orientation identified user support areas such as information provision and research support for students and faculty, research management and online tools. Kranich (2019) and Wilson et al. (2019) recommended the need to deploy information professionals with the technical know-how to assist in helping library staff meet the needs and preferences of most library users of today.

Many library staff in the commons have basic to intermediate knowledge of information technologies; a few have advanced computer competencies, and some learned on the job. However, at the time of the implementation of the commons, not all the staff appointed to work in the commons had adequate technology skills for the commons' readiness. The achievement of information technology literacy at work suggests that the commons can be implemented in the university libraries with fate on the staff’s capacity to learn on the job. The assertion by May and Campbell (1981) that levels of readiness to learn are in two ways: readiness to learn in fluidity (Crnic and Lamberty, 1994) and readiness to learn as processes evolve and foster (Bruner, 1977) is apt in this study. The library staff’s readiness to learn and adapt to the change will help for effective and efficient service delivery in the new era of technology adoption for library services.

The commons staff work in the commons with eagerness, joy, happiness, optimism, feelings of excitement, privilege and confidence to assist users in using the commons resources. But there were a few staff that expressed some feelings of panic, and reserved attitudes toward using the new technologies. There were reports of a feeling of frustration about introducing new services using new technologies. There were some negative and positive feelings. Mix feelings, low confidence, low personality, resistance, nervousness, unclear, stress and a feeling of difficulty using the new technologies, among others, were the negative feelings. Besides, there were some positive feelings of good and marvellous, surprise, fantastic and passionate feelings. Some were encouraged, had confidence, and accepted using the new technologies to render the commons services. The negative feelings are related to insecurity and perceived lack of control, such as mixed feelings, resistance and low confidence of the participants. These mimic the findings of Miake-Lye et al. (2020) and Abubakar (2020) in studies that did not focus on libraries.

The staff reported some political play, the feeling of rejection, and that they sometimes misunderstand the commons concepts have negatively affected the implementation of the commons. Wergin (2003) and Bernerth (2004) mentioned that commons implementation success depends on readiness characteristics, such as vision, purpose, planning, finance and human and material resources. In contrast, some positive feelings were reported such as being encouraged, confident and great feelings by the participants. This finding is supported by Parasuraman and Colby (2001). They described technology use and associated the feelings of technology insecurity with ambiguity and low usage and an assumption that insecurity predicts lower levels of perceived usefulness and ease of use and hypothesized that insecurity is negatively related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Cordova and Leeder, 2010).

They found that most of the staff were positive about learning and handling the challenges of the latest change while a few were negative. Positive attitudes include the attitudes to learn and pick up challenges with innovation, patience, normal, friendliness, lovely and collaboration. Some staff felt they were embarrassed with the technologies since they lack knowledge about the commons and have some disbelieves agitations and doubts. Lin and Chang (2011), Alshawi (2011) and Parasuraman (2000) described such an attitudinal situation as a distrust of the use of new technologies and the sceptic of being able to use the new technologies in work applications brought about feelings of insecurity over the technology’s presence. In Ramzan et al. (2021), “… a significant positive correlation was determined between librarians' attitudes towards information technology and libraries' information technology availability, at 0.01 significant level. The users reported the commons provides them with their preferred technology resources and services (h²⁼0.806) and the provision of teaching, learning and research needs (h² = 0.792).

In contrast, some had perceptions of doubts of what good the commons bring than being a synonymous name of the traditional library provisions, unreasonably high cost of the implementation of the common that leads to excessive use of money and financial burden on the library among others. In the findings of Rogers (2003), Davis (1989) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), it was stated that technology acceptance depends much on the individual’s psychological orientation and mindset. It was realized that the change in the three university libraries was readily accepted by the individual’s cognitive and psychological traits and exposure to the concept of the commons. The general usefulness of the commons (h² = 780) and easy access to the commons resources (h2 = 0.780) were the most highlighted perceptions of the commons by the users of the commons. This result supports Cordova and Leeder (2010) in their review of the library learning commons.

The management of the commons staff said that the commons heads, assistant heads and staff work in collaboration and have a harmonious relationship with mutual understanding. Work is done with joy and passion, respect for the positions held, teamwork, cooperation and support for each other. The lower-ranked staff with IT experts are ready to train the higher-ranked staff, while the higher-ranked staff is ready and humble to learn IT technologies from the lower-ranked staff. There is a transfer of knowledge and duties without any ill effect. It was found that harmonious and collaborative working relations have helped the success of the implementation of the commons. There is some level of harmony, joy, collaboration and peace that can improve performance.

The lack of control over technology access and use in the commons discourages the use of technologies as some users stay too long on the systems, an experience described by Sr and Waral (2020) in their study on disruptive technologies in the library. This event occurs because the commons staff did not have absolute control over how to manage the use of technologies. One of the respondents considered that this occurrence requires continuous technical training and orientation on how to manage the use of technologies in the commons. Control of technology use is mentioned in the works of Lin and Chang (2011). On the contrary, Parasuraman (2000) has said that new technologies offer the library staff increased control of the technology work environment of the information services profession, an advantage that is not occurring presently.

Some findings on the expectations of the librarians relate to equipping the commons with modern computers, delivering current technology services to address graduates’ and undergraduates' learning resource needs, and becoming research experts to support the users in research activities (Sr and Waral, 2020). Among the necessary facilities needed in the academic community, as Bielaczyc (2006) mentioned, are equipment and informational resources. Also mentioned was the maintenance needs of the commons facilities. However, all the libraries already have a biometric authentication system that checks access to the space. The effort to maintain the commons will offer some protection against damage through improper use of physical facilities and electronic resources.

The commons staff desire to be mature enough to use the technology facilities and resources to provide services without supervision (Roussel, 1984). They want to provide excellent services, correct the wrong perceptions about the staff, improved facilities, resources and services, satisfy user needs, and enjoy fast and stable Internet connection. Continuous use of the technology resources was appreciably met. The commons staff want to transfer knowledge to the users on what they have learned about the new technologies. The study of Daniels et al. (2010), also mentioned reference specialists who assist users in searching for information, which is in line with the expectations of expert services of the commons staff in this research. For the users, the major uses of the commons users rated high in respect of seminars (h²:0.826) and documents reproduction (h² = 0.756).

Nevertheless, one finding on reasons for failed expectations is good maintenance culture, and this can be related to the general culture of maintenance in Ghana. In an earlier study, Kportufe (2015) stated that “… attitudes of the Ghanaians to publicly owned properties, such as buildings, roads or plants, are generally negative. Connection to the information resources needed (h² = 0.753), the transformation of individuals’ research activities (h² = 0.860) and transformation in people’s learning (h² = 0.864). Other expectations include encouraging, improving and enlightening the traditional library services and learning new library services from experienced staff. To know, and gain appreciable knowledge, and experiences in computing with good communication skills to assist users to use electronic resources, provision expert services, improve literature searching skills, continuity of work and achievement of stakeholders’ goals.

On the maturity of the commons, the librarians mentioned space, computers, electronic resources and training to support teaching, learning and research as adequate, just as reported in Keramati et al. (2016). There were no incentives or rewards for the staff involved in the implementation of the commons despite the tasks being beyond the traditional library duties for which the staff was employed. The interviewees rather mentioned that a donor wall was built in honour of individuals and companies who financially supported the project. Bandura (1986) has recommended the application of operant conditioning with rewards as a re-enforcer for acceptable positive behaviour toward change implementation in library management. Although there were no incentives, the respondents expressed joy in working with the latest technologies, and these appeared to be the re-enforcers. The users’ assessment was positive concerning the computer training organized by the library (h² = 0.871), and electronic resources training organized by the library (h² = 0.871). These are critical issues in library commons (Johnson et al., 2020).

Generally, the commons staff reported that the user patronage is high, but suggested that user patronage will be higher if the library staff possess the requisite training, orientation and controlled use of the resources in providing the services. Halbert (2010) has stated that incorporating technologies and innovative systems in academic libraries will empower learning commons and increase patronage of the academic library. Altogether, the negative perceptions outweigh the positive perception and could negatively affect the implementation of the commons. The research of Prescott et al. (1995) found that the individual may adopt new technologies with perceptions of usefulness and ease of use as a measure of the state of readiness.

The service providers in the commons were library staff whose number of years in the service was between 6 and 10 years, and the highest number of them have worked in the commons between 3 and 4 years. These statistics possibly reflect that the library service providers were persons with a propensity for information technology-oriented work as their recruitment was only recent. Library commons has become a reality in the academic libraries where it is being implemented in Ghana; there is a similarity in services provided and technology deployment across the implementing institutions. But there is no national policy or framework that would guide the development of commons, and CARLIGH at whose back the infrastructure is emerging has not incorporated commons in their activities. The librarians are happy to be working in a technology-directed infrastructure; they have a sense of fulfilment and have positive feelings, attitudes and perceptions of the technology work, the training they are exposed to, and expectations of from roles in the commons.

On the question of the availability of support services and based on the communalities, the availability of current awareness services in the commons had the highest value of 0.647 while providing my preferred technology resources and services had the highest (0.806). The computer and other electronic resources training organized by the library were the highest readiness considerations offered by the user (0.807). The use of the commons for seminars was the major use factor (0.826), while the usefulness of the commons (0.798) was the key perception. On the learning resources, users were happy with online information resources such as Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC), an institutional repository (IR) and electronic databases, among others. However, the librarians thought that the commons facilities such as spaces were insufficient owing mainly to poor funding while the service providers would want rewards for their services since they are added responsibilities to their roles as librarians.

The commons comprises more than information technologies accouterments and their uses, a dominant focus of this present study. Nwagwu and Matobako’s (2021) study adopted the approach of Hess and Ostrom’s (2005) Institutional Analysis and Development framework to study commons in public libraries in a municipality in South Africa. Their approach focused on the aspect of community governance of commonly owned information resources. Further study on the commons in Ghana will benefit from this approach for more comprehensive information that could guide the national policy framework for commons development in Ghanaian academic libraries. Very significantly, the major focus on the provision of the commons services should be focused on the students, given the paucity of staff and other users of the commons, while more awareness raising should be organised for nonstudent targets. Finally, assessing the technology readiness of the commons could be tricky as the opinions of the respondents were based mainly on what they probably have experienced in their institution’s library commons and not based on what they have known the commons to be, library commons being an emerging practice.

The findings of this study have significant implications for society, library practice and researchers, particularly in the context of academic libraries in Ghana. Firstly, from a societal perspective, the study sheds light on the state of readiness and adoption of modern technologies within academic libraries. It highlights the importance of providing adequate learning resources and support services to meet users' needs effectively. By emphasizing the significance of resource availability, the study underscores the role of libraries in supporting educational and research activities within the community. Moreover, the positive attitudes of staff towards learning and embracing technological advancements contribute to creating a conducive environment for users, ultimately enhancing the quality of educational experiences and research outcomes in society.

In terms of library practice, the study underscores the importance of aligning library services with evolving technological trends and user preferences. The provision of modern facilities, such as workstations, Internet access and electronic resources, reflects a proactive approach by libraries in adapting to changing user needs. Additionally, the emphasis on user training and support services highlights the role of libraries in facilitating information literacy and research skills development among users. By offering comprehensive support services, libraries can enhance user experiences and promote effective utilization of library resources.

Furthermore, the findings have implications for researchers in the field of library and information science. The study contributes to the body of knowledge by providing insights into the factors influencing users' experiences and perceptions of library commons environments. The statistical analysis conducted offers valuable evidence of the relationships between various factors within library commons, informing future research directions and interventions. Moreover, the study highlights the importance of considering staff readiness and attitudes towards technology adoption in implementing library innovations. This underscores the need for further research on strategies to enhance staff training and support in leveraging technology to improve library services.

This paper was developed from the doctoral thesis of Dinal K. Baidoo, funded by the University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.