Open-Source Software Usage

1

OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE USAGE

Abstract

Open-source software is widely adopted across various spheres in the library world, including theological libraries. Because theological libraries have unique software needs and limitations, based on unique collections and goals, standard research on open-source usage in other types of libraries does not generally apply. This exploratory study analyzes the results of an email survey given to systems librarians, or the closest staff equivalents, at theological libraries in ATLA-affiliated (American Theological Library Association) institutions in order to show how open-source software is being used across the theological library world and to determine how widespread the usage is. The survey itself is a mixture of qualitative and quantitative questions and explores the variables of staff size and technical skill, as well as current kinds of open-source software used. The results show that open-source software is widely used across theological libraries, but in limited contexts, with LMSs and CMSs being the most common. This study has several potential strategic applications. The basic goal is to show the extent of the usage and, in doing so, allow for the solutions that theological libraries have devised using open-source software to be dispersed to a wider audience. As well, it gives theological libraries an idea of common tools and the options that are available.

Keywords: FOSS, open-source software, theological libraries, CMS, LMS, ILS

Open-source Software Usage in Theological Libraries

Open-source software is becoming increasingly prevalent across libraries, regardless of type, and research done on how libraries are using these software tools is becoming more common in LIS literature. However, theological libraries represent a dearth in this research and the needs that these libraries have means that the same research on general academic libraries does not often apply. This study aims to begin rectifying the overall lack of information by making the first step in presenting a basic view of how theological libraries are using open-source software. It does this through contacting theological libraries associated with ATLA (American Theological Library Association) member institutions and gathering data on their open-source software usage by means of a survey. This study was designed not to focus on any particular tool, but rather on the kinds of open-source tools that theological libraries are using and what their experiences with them are, as well as what reasons they have for using or not using open-source software. The research conducted was exploratory in nature, with the goal being to show the extent of open-source software usage among this type of academic library as well as to understand any trends that might exist in the usage of such software.

Definitions

Because this study was designed to look at open-source software usage in theological libraries in general as well as at specific types of software used in these types of libraries, it is helpful to define the major terms terms as they are used in this study and in the associated literature, since the exact meaning of each may not be obvious from the terms alone.

Open-source software

Open-source software, as it is used in this study, refers to free tools, products, and projects where the source code of the tool, product, or project is available for viewing, modification, and redistribution by any user or interested party. The software itself is released under any one of several licenses (Open Source Initiative, n.d.a) that ensure that the software is free to distribute and remains free, regardless of how it is modified. The official definition, per the Open Source Initiative, has ten criteria that software must meet to be classified as “open-source”(Open Source Initiative, n.d.b), with criteria ranging from distribution to nondiscrimination, and the nature of the license that the software uses.

Theological Library

For the purposes of this study, a theological library is a library that is part of an institution associated with the American Theological Library Association and is a freestanding library at that institution that acts in support of a seminary, religious studies program, or Religion department. This excludes general academic libraries at colleges and universities, libraries that possess special collections/sections devoted to theology as a part of the main library collection, libraries at religiously affiliated institutions that are not explicitly theological in focus, and libraries that are devoted to multiple different graduate programs.

LMS

A learning management system (LMS) is a server-based system that provides electronic tools and resources for courses at academic institutions. Watson and Watson (2007) offer a basic definition, paraphrasing Szabo & Flesher’s 2002 paper “CMI Theory and Practice: Historical Roots of Learning Management Systems”:

LMS is the framework that handles all aspects of the learning process. An LMS is the infrastructure that delivers and manages instructional content, identifies and assesses individual and organizational learning or training goals, tracks the progress towards meeting those goals, and collects and presents data for supervising the learning process of an organization as a whole. (Watson and Watson, 2007, p. 28)

Examples of LMSs in common usage include Moodle, Sakai, and Brightspace.

CMS

A CMS (content management system) is a program or set of programs designed to simplify the process of creating a website and adding content. It is based on a server rather than residing on an individual desktop. In essence, a CMS provides a layer of abstraction from the code of a website and allows a user with no knowledge of coding to create and edit a site as well as add applications in the forms of modules and add-ons. They are becoming ubiquitous in academic libraries and streamline the process of maintaining a site. As described by Rouse:

CMSes are typically used for enterprise content management (ECM) and web content management (WCM). An ECM facilitates collaboration in the workplace by integrating document management, digital asset management and records retention functionalities, and providing end users with role-based access to the organization's digital assets. A WCM facilitates collaborative authoring for websites. (Rouse, 2016)

Examples of common CMSs used by libraries include WordPress, Drupal, and Joomla.

ILS

Integrated library systems/automation systems are somewhat interchangeable “terms used to describe the software that operates the circulation, cataloging, public-access catalog, reports, and other modules that do the work of typical library operations” (Weber and Peters, 2010, p. 2). Examples of ILS software are Koha, Evergreen, and Alma.

Digital Repository

A digital repository is a program or set of programs that is based in a server and is designed to aid in managing the digital resources of a given institution, both in terms of storage and display of those resources. The goal of a digital repository is to provide a way for the institution to display the digital resources and make them available to users. Examples of digital repository software include Hydra, Dspace, and Islandora.

Literature Review

Little to no research has been done on theological libraries in terms of their software usage. While research exists on open-source software usage in general academic libraries and a number of articles offer case studies on more specific varieties of academic libraries, theological libraries are notably absent. They have unique challenges and resources, which often means that the same trends and standards do not apply to them as to, for example, a law library. The articles below analyze a spectrum of open-source software types used in academic libraries, ranging from digital repositories to ILSs and CMSs and show the types of research that can potentially be done on theological libraries. Because theological libraries are often classifiable as academic libraries, the research in the articles is relevant to them in broad strokes, but should not be considered applicable across the board, considering the range of institutions classifiable as theological libraries.

A common type of article related to open-source software is one that addresses specific technologies or technology types. These kinds of articles are applicable in broad strokes and show general trends that may also be reflected in theological libraries. Such articles include “Open Access, Open Source and Digital Libraries: Current Trends in University Libraries Around the World” (Krishnamurthy, 2008) which looks at various types of open-source software in use by academic libraries and other institutions for the display of digital collections and “A Survey of Koha in Australian Special Libraries: Open Source Brings new Opportunities to the Outback” (Keast, 2011) which examines Koha usage in rural Australian medical libraries. Also of interest is the article “Content Management Systems: Trends in Academic Libraries” (Connell, 2013) discusses the variety of CMSs that academic libraries have used and gives analysis of survey data that the author has gathered.

Other types of articles include individual case studies where the relevance comes from the fact that they are often focused on smaller libraries with similarly limited resources as theological libraries. These articles include “Migrating from Innovative Interfaces' Millennium to Koha: The NYU Health Sciences Libraries' experiences” (Walls, 2011), “Building an Open Source Institutional Repository at a Small Law School Library: Is it Realistic or Unattainable?” (Fang 2011), and The article “Implementing Open-Source Software for Three Core Library Functions: A Stage-by Stage Comparison” (Morton-Owens and Hanson, 2011). All of these articles have a limited scope, but may be relevant for a study of theological libraries in that the types of libraries that they focus on tend to face similar challenges as theological libraries.

While theological libraries are not so different as to be entirely separate entities from other kinds of libraries, they are unique and face unique opportunities and challenges. The articles above are useful for research into open-source software in theological libraries in that they provide an overview of trends in the academic library world, and offer a basis for comparison, but each subset of library type has its own trends, and they may not match the trends displayed by the articles.

Methods

This study is based on a survey sent to libraries that meet the above-stated definition of a theological library. The information was gathered from the ATLA’s institutional membership list and pared down to 88 libraries, based on the definition of “theological library” above and on the availability of contact information for staff. When possible, librarians with titles such as “systems librarian” were contacted. In instances where no such person existed, the library director was contacted.

The survey itself, displayed in the appendix, contained a mixture of qualitative and quantitative questions, in order to take into account a diversity of experiences/opinions regarding open-source software and create as detailed and accurate a portrait as possible. The survey gathered data on the following variables:

• The different types of open-source software the library made available to patrons,
• The different types of open-source software the library used,
• The technical skills of the staff,
• The number of full-time staff,

Additionally, the survey asked the respondents about the overall experience with the software and the cost, in terms of time, finances, etc. that the library paid, as well as whether or not usage amount had shifted from the past. The questions in the survey, aside from the required consent, were optional, leading to necessarily skewed data in some questions.

Data

Of the 88 institutions contacted, 43 have submitted completed surveys at the time of writing, with a variety of responses. This is a response rate of approximately 48%, allowing for generalizations and interpretations of the data to apply across the population surveyed. The data shows a number of interesting trends.

Knowledge about open-source software in theological libraries is fairly widespread. 90.24% of respondents stated that they were aware of open-source software and only 9.76% indicated that they were unsure or knew nothing about it. However, adoption of open-source software is not as widespread as knowledge of it, and is unevenly distributed across various types of software.

More than half of the respondents indicated their library used open-source software in some capacity, but that usage is heavily skewed toward institutional use rather than use in patron-accessible computers, and towards specific types of software. 73.17% of respondents indicated that their library used no open-source software on patron-accessible computers. Only 39.02% said that their library did not use open-source software at all. Tables 1 and 2 below give the numeric breakdowns for open-source software used on patron-accessible computers and institutional usage.

Table 1. Open-source software on patron accessible computers

Table 2. Open-source software used on an institutional level

Respondents were asked to check all types of software that apply to their institution and the most common, with 34.15%(14), was usage of an open-source LMS. Open-source content management systems (CMS) were also in high usage, with 29.27% (12) of respondents saying that their library used one. Open-source digital repositories and ILSs were noticeably lower, with 21.95%(9) and 12.20% (5), respectively.

Due to the impracticality of listing every type of software available, respondents were also asked to name a few of the problems that they have used open-source software to solve, when applicable. These responses showed a diversity of usage for open-source software and often included references to specific software. The responses have been coded into the categories: ILS, Library Guide, Asset Management, Signage, LMS, CMS, Citation Management, Audio, Image, and Web Browser. The table below gives a numeric breakdown of the categories:

Table 3: Problems Solved with open-source software

Categories / Count
Asset Management / 7
ILS / 6
LMS / 5
CMS / 4
Library Guide / 3
Citation Management / 3
Audio / 2
Image / 2
Signage / 1
Web Browser / 1

37 of the respondents answered the survey question “What factors play into the decision for your library to use or not to use open-source software?” The question was qualitative in nature and responses were coded into the categories: time, money, knowledge, support, and institutional policy, with several responses falling into two or more categories. Certain responses fell outside of these categories entirely and could not easily be coded into any category or combination of categories. Of these 37 responses, 9 responses fell into the “institutional policy” category and stated that they either received their software from consortia of which they are members or are subject to their university library/IT department policies regarding software choice. The most common factor taken into consideration was budget (9), followed by overall knowledge, including staff knowledge as well as knowledge of the product (8), and the types of support available (7). Time, both in the terms of time spent researching a given software type and in terms of time for staff to modify/learn the product, was only mentioned 4 times as a major factor to be taken into consideration.

41 respondents answered the question “Does your library have any full-time staff members that are able to alter the code of open-source tools?” Only 19.51%(8) of the respondents stated that they had a staff-member capable of this. The average number of staff is 4.9, with a median of 3.

Though less than 20% of libraries surveyed indicated that they have a staff-member capable of manipulating the software at the code level, most support for open-source software is handled in-house. Of the 17 responses to the question “How is the open-source software supported (i.e. in-house, outsourced to a company, etc.)?”, 58% (10) indicated that their institution used in-house support. Outsourcing the support to a vendor only occurs in 17% of institutions (3) and 23%(4) use a combination of outsourcing and in-house support.

Manipulation of the code for open-source products does not seem uncommon for theological libraries, though the overall lack of responses to the question may make it seem more common than it necessarily is. Of the 17 responses to the question “If your library uses open-source software, has it manipulated/change it at the code-level in the past?”, 47%(8) of respondents gave affirmative responses, 47% gave negative responses, and one response indicated that they had manipulated to software, but only through vendor support.

Overall, the relationship with open-source software as displayed in the survey results was positive and indicative of growth, as Table 4 indicates.

Table 4. Shift in usage over time

The data visualized above represents a question where respondents were asked how their library’s relationship with open-source software had changed relative to past usage. 48.78% (19) indicated that their library either used the same amount or that they were now using more open-source software than in the past. Only 2.44% indicated that their library used less. Additionally, the views on open-source software were neutral to positive. Of the respondents who answered the question “If you have used open-source tools in your library, what has the overall experience with open-source tools been?”, 14 responses were positive and 4 reported a mixed experience. No one reported an overall bad experience.

However, though the experience with open-source software was generally reported as positive, respondents also pointed to common issues. One respondent stated, “Generally positive, though sometimes time-consuming, which can be difficult with a very limited staff”. This response displays a trend that repeats through the experiences reported in the survey. Even those with good experiences of the software commonly note the time needed: