پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,308 |
| تعداد مقالات | 11,245 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 23,475,793 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 15,805,145 |
شناسایی و اعتبارسنجی شاخصها و معیارهای ارزیابی کیفیت دسترسی همگانی به خدمات اطلاعاتی و فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات در کتابخانههای عمومی کشورهای منتخب خاورمیانه | ||
| پژوهش های کتابخانه های دیجیتالی و هوشمند | ||
| دوره 12، شماره 4 (پیاپی 47)، بهمن 1404 اصل مقاله (1004.53 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/mrs.2026.77422.1692 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| کریمه نواصری1؛ عبدالرضا نوروزی چاکلی* 2؛ زهرا اباذری3 | ||
| 1گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، واحد تهران شمال، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی تهران، ایران | ||
| 2علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شاهد، تهران،ایران | ||
| 3گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، واحد تهران شمال، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف پژوهش حاضر شناسایی و اعتبارسنجی شاخصها و معیارهای ارزیابی کیفیت دسترسی همگانی به خدمات اطلاعاتی و فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات (ICT) در کتابخانههای عمومی کشورهای منتخب خاورمیانه است. این پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش، توصیفی–اکتشافی است. گردآوری دادهها با بهرهگیری از مطالعات کتابخانهای و روش دلفی انجام شد. در مرحله نخست، شاخصهای اولیه ارزیابی کیفیت دسترسی همگانی از متون و منابع چاپی و الکترونیکی مرتبط استخراج گردید. سپس این شاخصها طی چند دور دلفی و با مشارکت ۱۶ نفر از خبرگان حوزه علم اطلاعات و کتابخانههای عمومی که به روش نمونهگیری گلولهبرفی انتخاب شده بودند، مورد بررسی و اعتبارسنجی قرار گرفت. تحلیل دادهها به شیوه کیفی انجام شد. یافتههای پژوهش نشان داد ارزیابی کیفیت دسترسی همگانی به خدمات اطلاعاتی و ICT در کتابخانههای عمومی کشورهای منتخب خاورمیانه در چهار بعد اصلی شامل توانمندسازی کاربران، دسترسی به منابع اطلاعاتی، کاهش شکاف دیجیتالی و عدالت اطلاعاتی قابل تبیین است. در بعد توانمندسازی کاربران، شاخصهایی نظیر آموزش سواد اطلاعاتی و دیجیتال، یادگیری مادامالعمر و سواد هوش مصنوعی از اهمیت بالایی برخوردار بودند. در بعد دسترسی به منابع، دسترسی آزاد به منابع تخصصی، بهداشتی، کشاورزی و پژوهشی بیشترین اهمیت را داشت. همچنین توسعه زیرساختهای دیجیتال، دسترسی همگانی به اینترنت و توجه به نیازهای اطلاعاتی گروههای خاص اجتماعی بهعنوان مؤلفههای کلیدی کاهش شکاف دیجیتالی و تحقق عدالت اطلاعاتی شناسایی شد. نتایج پژوهش میتواند مبنایی علمی برای برنامهریزی، سیاستگذاری و ارتقای کیفیت خدمات اطلاعاتی و دیجیتال در کتابخانههای عمومی فراهم آورد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| کتابخانههای عمومی؛ کیفیت دسترسی همگانی؛ خدمات اطلاعاتی؛ فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات؛ شکاف دیجیتالی؛ عدالت اطلاعاتی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Identification and Validation of Indicators and Criteria for Evaluating the Quality of Public Access to Information and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Services in Public Libraries of Selected Middle Eastern Countries | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| karimeh navasery1؛ Abdolreza Noroozichakoli2؛ Zahra Abazari3 | ||
| 1Department of Knowledge and Information Science, NT.C, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Information Science and Knowledge , Faculty of Humanities, shahed University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Department of Knowledge and Information Science, NT.C, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction Universal access to information and communication technologies (ICT) has become one of the principal responsibilities of public libraries in advancing sustainable development, lifelong learning, digital inclusion, and information justice. As public libraries increasingly expand their digital infrastructure and online services, ensuring equitable access to information resources for all members of society has become a strategic priority. Reliable evaluation frameworks are therefore essential for assessing service quality, identifying gaps in accessibility, and supporting evidence-based decision-making. Although international organizations such as IFLA and UNESCO have introduced general guidelines for inclusive library services, no comprehensive and validated framework has been specifically developed to evaluate the quality of universal access to information services and ICT in public libraries across the Middle East. This study addresses this gap by identifying and validating a comprehensive set of indicators and evaluation criteria tailored to the regional context. Methodology This applied research employed a descriptive–exploratory design. Data collection began with a comprehensive review of printed and electronic literature, international standards, policy documents, professional guidelines, and previous empirical studies related to public libraries, universal access, digital inclusion, ICT accessibility, and information equity. The preliminary indicators extracted from the literature were subsequently evaluated using the Delphi technique. A panel of experts specializing in library and information science, public library management, and information systems participated in multiple Delphi rounds. During each round, participants assessed the relevance, clarity, applicability, and importance of the proposed indicators. The iterative Delphi process continued until a satisfactory level of consensus was achieved, resulting in the validation of a comprehensive framework for evaluating the quality of universal access in public libraries. Findings The Delphi process confirmed that the quality of universal access to information services and ICT in public libraries is represented by four interrelated dimensions: user empowerment, access to information resources, reduction of the digital divide, and information equity. Within the user empowerment dimension, information literacy, digital literacy, lifelong learning, artificial intelligence literacy, and digital skills development were identified as the most influential indicators for strengthening users' capabilities and enhancing their effective participation in the digital society. The access to information resources dimension emphasized unrestricted and equitable access to scientific, educational, governmental, agricultural, health-related, and specialized information resources, alongside digital collections, electronic databases, online reference services, and remote information services that support informed decision-making and community development. The reduction of the digital divide dimension highlighted the importance of strengthening digital infrastructure through reliable high-speed Internet connectivity, modern computer facilities, assistive technologies, accessible digital platforms, continuous technological innovation, and user-centered digital services. These indicators contribute to minimizing disparities in access to information technologies among different population groups. The fourth dimension, information equity, focused on ensuring inclusive and equitable services for disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, including people with disabilities, older adults, women, children, immigrants, rural communities, and economically marginalized groups. Equal opportunities to access information regardless of demographic, social, economic, or physical characteristics were identified as essential indicators of high-quality public library services. Collectively, these validated indicators provide a multidimensional perspective for evaluating universal access and demonstrate the close relationship between digital inclusion, information justice, technological accessibility, and sustainable public library development. Discussion and Conclusion The validated framework developed in this study offers a comprehensive and evidence-based model for evaluating the quality of universal access to information services and ICT in public libraries throughout the Middle East. By integrating internationally recognized principles with the specific cultural, social, and technological characteristics of the region, the framework addresses an important gap in the existing literature and provides a practical instrument for systematic library assessment. The proposed indicators enable policymakers, public library administrators, and decision-makers to evaluate current services, identify strengths and weaknesses, prioritize strategic investments, improve technological infrastructure, and formulate evidence-based policies that promote equitable access to information. Furthermore, the framework supports digital inclusion initiatives, strengthens information equity, and contributes to achieving broader sustainable development goals through more inclusive public library services. From a theoretical perspective, this research expands the literature on universal access by presenting a regionally validated evaluation model that combines concepts of digital inclusion, information justice, ICT accessibility, and user empowerment. The framework also provides a foundation for future comparative studies, benchmarking initiatives, and the development of standardized assessment instruments applicable to public library systems in the Middle East and other developing regions. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Public Libraries, Universal Access, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Information Equity, Digital Divide, Evaluation Indicators | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Agumba, J. N. (2015). Validating and Identifying Health and Safety Performance Improvement Indicators: Experience of Using Delphi Technique. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 7(3(J)), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v7i3(j).578 American Library Association. (2018). Public Library Technology Survey. American Library Association Aminalroaya, R., Matlabi, D., Abazari, Z., & Khosravi, F. (2024). Identifying and Determining the Components and Indicators of Digital Information Dissemination Services in the National Library and Archives of Iran. Academic Librarianship and Information Research, 58(3), 1-24. (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.22059/jlib.2025.385216.1760 Appleton, L. (2017). Libraries and Key Performance Indicators: Measuring and Assessing Library Performance. Chandos Publishing. Barfi, K. A., Parbie, S. K., Filson, C. K., Teye, M. V., Kodua-Ntim, K., & Ayensu, E. (2023). Assessing the quality of services at an academic library. Heliyon, 9(12), e22449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22449 Barton, T., & DesRoches, D. (2007). Minimizing Non-Response in a Survey of New Businesses (Presentation). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1026412 Best, R. J. (1974). An Experiment in Delphi Estimation in Marketing Decision Making. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(4), 448. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151295 Campbell, S. M., & Cantrill, J. A. (2008). Consensus methods in prescribing research. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 26(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2710.2001.00331.x Cottam, H., Roe, M., & Challacombe, J. (2004). Outsourcing of trucking activities by relief organisations. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 1(1), 1-26. Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. (1975). Group Technique for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Scott, Foresman and Company. Fan, C. K., & Cheng, C.-L. (2006). A study to identify the training needs of life insurance sales representatives in Taiwan using the Delphi approach. International Journal of Training and Development, 10(3), 212–226. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2006.00255.x Habibi, A., Jahantigh, F. F., & Sarafrazi, A. (2015). Fuzzy Delphi Technique for Forecasting and Screening Items. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7307.2015.00036.5 IFLA. (2021). Guidelines for Public Libraries in Digital Inclusion. IFLA. Mansourian, Y. (2011). Filling Digital Divide by Developing Public Libraries’ Educational and Cultural Services. Library and Information Science Research, 2(4), 111-122. (In Persian) DOI: 10.22067/riis.v2i1.9010 Mehra, B., Seifi, L., & Irvin, V. (2025). Social Justice in Library and Information Science: New Directions and New Frontiers in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Emerald Publishing Limited Mohseni, M., Ghaffari, S., Salami, M., & Moradi, M. (2025). Identifying and Explaining the Service Components of Libraries and Information Centers based on Information Society Criteria and Dimensions of Globalization with a Delphi Method. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management (STIM),11(1), 135-158. (In Persian) doi: 10.22091/stim.2022.8543.1856 Najafpour Moghadam, N., Biranvand, A., & Zarei, S. (2023). Investigating the Impact of Information Literacy and Communication Information Technologies on Knowledge Sharing among Public Library Librarians, Research on Information Scienc & Public Libraries, 29(112), 108-125. (In Persian) Nichol, R.J. (2007). A Framework for the Development of a Post-Graduate Diploma Programme in Mental Health. University of the Free State. Norouzi, Y., Abbasi, F., & Heidarnia, Z. (2019). Library evaluation models: Emphasizing on services quality. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management (STIM), 4(4), 3-30. (In Persian) DOI: 10.22091/stim.2019.3650.1258 OECD. (2020). Measuring the Digital Divide: Framework for Digital Skills and Use. OECD. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information &Amp; Management, 42(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 Parenté, F. J., Anderson, J. K., Myers, P., & O’brien, T. (1984). An examination of factors contributing to delphi accuracy. Journal of Forecasting, 3(2), 173–182. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980030205 Rajendran, S., & Gambatese, J. A. (2009). Development and Initial Validation of Sustainable Construction Safety and Health Rating System. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(10), 1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2009)135:10(1067) Rogers, M. R., & Lopez, E. C. (2002). Identifying Critical Cross-Cultural School Psychology Competencies. Journal of School Psychology, 40(2), 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00093-6 Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2070(99)00018-7 Rrahmani, M., Fahim Nia, F., & Fahimi Far, S. (2023). Identify and prioritize the risks of Iranian public library services, Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science, 14(3), 3. (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.22055/slis.2021.36433.1817 Shuva, N. Z., & Akhter, R. (2011). Bridging the digital divide through public, school and college libraries: Case study of Bangladesh. Journal of the Bangladesh Association of Young Researchers, 1(1), 49–77. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbayr.v1i1.6839 Stahl, N. N., & Stahl, R. J. (1991). We can agree after all! Achieving consensus for a critical thinking component of a gifted program using the Delphi technique<sup>1</sup>. Roeper Review, 14(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199109553392 Sultan, M., & Rafiq, M. (2021). Open access information resources and university libraries: Analysis of perceived awareness, challenges, and opportunities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), 102367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102367 UNESCO. (2019). Digital Inclusion Indicators for Libraries. UNESCO. von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013 Woudenberg, F. (1991). An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 40(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(91)90002-w Ziglio, E. (1996). The Delphi method and its contribution to decision making. In M. Adler, & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public Health. Kingsley. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 156 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 7 |
||