User Pattern Chapter 1

CHAPTER -5
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Based on the survey conducted by visiting and creating awareness activities of N-LIST
membership available (data collected through questionnaires) and unavailable N-LIST
membership (an opinion survey through interview) colleges affiliated to the Manomaniam
Sundaranar University of Tirunelveli the data regarding varied levels. Thus, this chapter is
devoted to tabulation, analysis, and interpretation of data collected, discussion and the
inferences drawn according to the objectives of the study. The term analysis refers to the
computation of certain measures along with searching for patterns of relationship that exist
among data groups. Thus in the process of analysis, relationship or supporting or conflicting
with original or new hypothesis should be subjected to statistical test of significance to
determine with what validity data can be said to indicate any conclusion [1, p. 44]
The investigator dealt with the data collection after conducting awareness activity
through 700 questionnaires distributed to research scholars of all the 28 N-LIST membership
available colleges of and through interview to get the opinion on N-LIST from few librarians
and large group of researchers totally with 300 respondents of 13 unavailable N-LIST
membership colleges. Thus this chapter is divided into three parts.
5.1.1 PART-1
Data regarding number of researchers under subject wise and explained the variables
such as personal characteristics, institution and library services, awareness of e-resources, use
and access of e-resources, constraints and opinion of e-resources are analyzed.
1
5.2 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The ever increasing number of students accessing E-resources coupled with recent
explosion of information resources thought consortium may have considerable implications for
research among the Research Scholars. Due to advancement in Information Technology, the
style of functioning technology, the style of functioning is augmented informs of Researchers
needs and approaches. These are classified according to their personal characteristics. Hence
the socio-economic variables are analyzed in terms of age, gender, marital status, location of
residence, qualification, category, department / subject, status, mode of study which are
presented in the tables given below.
The data collected from the research scholars about different personal characteristics
have been shown in the tables.
Table 5.1 Gender wise classification
Variable Response
Sl.No
Gender Frequency Percentage Total (%)
1.1 Male 154 22

700 (100)
1.2 Female 546 78
Source: Primary Data
2
Chart 5.1 Gender wise classification
22%
78%
Male Female
This population includes 154 (22%) males and 546 (78%) females. Gender is an
important factor to be considered in order to know the access status of N-LIST and other
resources. Hence, the study aims at obtaining the views of both the gender.
Table 5.2 Age wise classification
Variable Response
Sl.No
Age Group Frequency Percentage Total (%)
2.1 Below 25 301 43
2.2 25-29 211 30
2.3 30-34 145 21

700 (100)
2.4 35-39 33 5
2.5 40 and above 10 1
3
Chart 5.2 Age wise classification
PERCENT
43
30
21
5
1
Below 25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40 and
above
Series1 43 30 21 5 1
AGE GROUP
It is found that (43%) are in the age group of below 25 and 30% are in the age group
of 25-29, (21%) are in 30-34 age group, (5%) are in 35-39 age group and (1%) are in 40 and
above age group. From the results shows that age is an important factor in arriving at a good
decision and implementing it. Young and energetic research scholars of the age group below
25 years (43%) are considered to be more energetic, innovative and dynamic in accepting new
modern concepts.
Table 5.3 Marital Status wise classification
Variable Response
Sl.No
Marital Status Frequency Percentage Total (%)
3.1 Married 278 40 700
3.2 Unmarried 422 60 (100)
4
Chart 5.3 Marital Status wise classification
Married
40%
Unmarried
60%
Serial No. 3 Shows that 278 (40%) research scholars are married and 422 (60%)
research scholars are unmarried and they are the highest number in this study.
Table 5.4 Location wise classification
Variable Response
Sl.No
Location of residence Frequency Percentage Total (%)
4.1 Urban 197 28.14
4.2 Semi Urban 210 30 700 (100)
4.3 Rural 293 41.86
5
Chart 5.4 Location wise classification
50
40
Percent
30
41.86
20 28.14 30
10
0
Urban Semi Urban Rural
Location of Residence
Serial No. 4 highlights that 197 (28.14%) research scholars hail from urban areas and
210 (30%) belong to semi urban areas, 293 (41.86%) respondents are from rural areas and it is
the highest living of researchers.
Table 5.5 Qualification wise classification
Variable Response
Sl.No
Qualification Frequency Percentage Total (%)
5.1 M.Sc 305 43.57
5.2 M.A 263 37.58
5.3 M.Com 108 15.43

700 (100)
5.4 M.L.I.Sc 8 1.14
5.5 M.P.Ed 1 .14
5.6 MHRD 8 1.14
5.7 MBA 2 .29
5.8 MCA 5 .71
6
Chart 5.5 Qualification wise classification
45
40
35
30
Percent
25
20
15
10
5
0
M.Sc M.A M.Com M.L.I.S M.P.Ed MHRD MBA MCA
c
Series1 43.57 37.58 15.43 1.14 0.14 1.14 0.29 0.71
Qualification
The above table Serial No. 5 shows that majority of the respondents do have M.Sc
qualification 305 (43.57%), 263 respondents (37.58%) have M.A and 108 respondents
(15.43%) are qualified for M.Com, 8 respondents for each in M.L.I.Sc and M.H.R.D have the
percentage of (1.14) and the lowest of 1 respondent (.14%) in M.PEd, 2 respondent (.29%)
have MBA and 5 respondent (.71%) have MCA qualification. (Figure 5.1)
Educational qualification is one of the important to adopt new techniques in modern
trends. 43.57% of the respondents are M.Sc graduate who are the highest number and play an
important role in exposing their feelings about the use and access E-resources through N-LIST.
They can be guiding stars and model to other research scholars in many ways.
Table 5.6 Category wise classification

Variable Response
Sl.No
Category Frequency Percentage Total (%)
6.1 Science 310 44.29

700(100)
6.2 Non-Science 390 55.71
7
Chart 5.6 Category wise classification
55.71 Science
44.29 55.71
Non-Science
Table, serial No. 6 shows that 310 (44.29%) were Science and 390 (55.71%) are Non-
Science and it is the highest number for this study.
Table 5.7 Department / Subject wise classification
Variable Response
Sl.No
Department / Subject Frequency Percentage Total (%)
7.1 Tamil 94 13.43
7.2 English 74 10.57
7.3 Maths 40 5.71
7.4 Physics 79 11.29
7.5 Chemistry 62 8.86
7.6 Zoology 71 10.14 700 (100)
7.7 Botany 35 5
7.8 Bio Technology 2 .29
7.9 Micro Biology 3 .43
7.10 Bio chemistry 1 .14
7.11 Computer Science 15 2.14
8
7.12 Nutrition & Dietetics 2 .29
7.13 Library & Information Science 8 1.14
7.14 Physical Education 1 .14
7.15 History 47 6.71
7.16 Economics 48 6.86
7.17 Commerce 108 15.43
7.18 Human Resource Development 8 1.14
7.19 Business Administration 2 .29
Chart 5.7 Department / Subject wise classification
Business Administration
Human Resource Development
Commerce
Economics
History
Physical Education
Library & Information Science
Dept /subject wise
Nutrition & Dietetics

Computer Science
Bio chemistry
Micro Biology
Bio Technology
Botany
Zoology
Chemistry
Physics
Maths
English
Tamil
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Percent
9
The above table Serial No. 7 shows that 94 (13.43%) respondents belong to Tamil
subject, 74 (10.57%) are from English subject, 40 (5.71%) are from Mathematics subject, 79
(11.29%) are from Physics, 62 (8.86%) are from Chemistry, 71 (10.14%) are from Zoology,
35 (5%) are from Botany, 2 (.29%) are from Bio-technology, Nutrition & Dietetics and
Business Administration, 3 (.43%) are from Micro Biology, 1 (.14%) from Bio Chemistry and
Physical Education, 15 (2.14%) are from computer science, 8 (1.14%) are from Library &
Information Science and Human Resource Development, 47 (6.71%) are from History, 48
(6.86%) are from Economics, 108 (15.43%) are from Commerce.
From the above analysis the reason for a large number of research scholars of commerce
is obvious. In this fast growing electronic world, the scope for improvement and development
is very much considered.
Table 5.8 Status wise classification
Variable Response
Sl.No
Status Frequency Percentage Total (%)
8.1 Research Scholar only 477 68.14

700 (100)
8.2 Both Research Scholar & Faculty 223 31.86
Chart 5.8 Status wise classification
Research Scholar only Both Research Scholar & Faculty
32%
68%
10
Most of the respondents are research scholars only with the response of 477 (68.14%),
and 223 (31.86%) respondents are both research scholar and faculty.
The main reason for the increased percentage of 68.14 from the research scholars only
because most of them are giving importance to regular in research study.
Table 5.9 Mode of study wise classification
Variable Response
Sl.No
Mode of study Frequency Percentage Total (%)
9.1 Regular M.Phil 358 51.14
9.2 Regular Ph.D 119 17

700(100)
9.3 Part-Time M.Phil - -
9.4 Part-Time Ph.D 223 31.86
Chart 5.9 Mode of study wise classification
60
51.14
50
40
31.86
PERCENT
30
20 17
10
0
0
Regular M.Phil Regular Ph.D Part-Time M.Phil Part-Time Ph.D
MODE OF STUDY
11
It is understood that 358 respondents (51.14%) of them are doing regular M. Phil and
119 (17%) are regular Ph.D. In the same time no one is in Part-time M. Phil and 223 (31.86%)
are doing Ph.D in Part-time.
This shows that doing research either Pre-Ph.D or Ph.D are in regular basis, and at the
age group of below 25 can think properly and do the research activity more effectively,
creativity and curiosity.
5.3 INSTITUTIONS
Institutions are classified based on the district, year of establishment, institution type
and location. The results are given in the following Tables.
Table 5.10 Classification of institutions
Variable Response
S.No
Institutions (District wise) Frequency Percentage Total (%)
1.1 Tirunelveli 186 26.57
1.2 Thoothukudi 226 32.29 700 (100)
1.3 Kanyakumari 288 41.14
Table 5.10 highlights the classification of institution by means of district, year of
establishment, institution type and locality. Colleges from three districts were chosen for the
study. This survey includes a population of 186 (26.57%) from Tirunelveli District, 226
(32.29%) from Thoothukudi District and 288 (41.14%) from Kanyakumari District.
12
Chart 5.10 Classification of institutions
50 41.14
40 32.29
26.57
30
20
Percentage
10
0
Tirunelveli Thoothukudi Kanyakumari
Series1 26.57 32.29 41.14
Institutions (District Wise)
It depicts that majority of the respondents are from Kanyakumari District as it have
many research departments in colleges, next comes Thoothukudi as it have industrially
developed and many colleges and finally Tirunelveli has an University attracted many students
in an around district.
Table 5.11 Classification of Year of Establishment
Variable Response
S.No
Year of Establishment Frequency Percentage Total (%)
2.1 Till 1950 184 26.29
2.2 1951 to 1970 354 50.57 700 (100)
2.3 1971 to 2014 162 23.14
13
Chart 5.11 Classification of Year of Establishment
Percentage
60
50.57
50
40
30 26.29
23.14
20
10
Till 1950 Percentage

1951 to 1970
1971 to 2014
Till 1950 1951 to 1970 1971 to 2014

Percentage 26.29 50.57 23.14
Serial No. 2 shows that from the colleges established till 1950 the response was
184(26.29 %), 354(50.57%) respondents are from colleges established between 1951 -1970
and 162(23.14%) respondents of the research scholars are in institutions established between
1971- 2014. More number of colleges were started between the years 1951-1970.
14
Table 5.12 Classification of Institution Type
Variable Response
S.No
Institution Type Frequency Percentage Total (%)
3.1 Government 15 2.14
3.2 Aided 391 55.86
3.3 Self Financing 87 12.43 700 (100)
3.4 Autonomous Aided 207 29.57
Chart 5.12 Classification of Institution Type
55.86
60
50
40
29.57
Percent
30
20 12.43
10 2.14
0
Government Aided Self - Autonomous
Financing Aided
Series1 2.14 55.86 12.43 29.57
Institution Type
Serial No. 3 explains the type of management 15 (2.14%) institutions are Government
Colleges, 391 (55.86) are aided Colleges, 87 (12.43%) are Self-financing and 207 (29.57%)
are Autonomous Aided Colleges. It is clear that 55.86% of the institutions are Aided Colleges
and are providing Research Courses for the students.
15
Table 5.13 Classification of Location
Variable Response
S.No
Location Frequency Percentage Total (%)
4.1 Urban 73 10.43
4.2 Semi - Urban 367 52.43 700 (100)
4.3 Rural 260 37.14
Chart 5.13 Classification of Location
52.43
60
50 37.14
40
Percent
30
20 10.43
10
0
Urban Semi - Urban Rural
Series1 10.43 52.43 37.14
Location
Serial No. 4, shows that 73 (10.43%) colleges are located at Urban, 367 (52.43%) are
in semi-Urban and 260 (37.14%) are in Rural areas. Most of the colleges located in Semi-Urban
area in and around District. It is the duty of the educational authorities to open more colleges
in urban areas to provide balanced growth.
16
5.4 CERTIFICATION / QUALITY
The Quality of the institution can be measured and certification given as per the
services and facilities of the various sections in the institution especially research facilities,
library infrastructure facilities and its services and usage, e-resources subscription, access, use
and training facilities, membership on Consortia with network of libraries and are presented
in the following Table 5.3.
Table 5.14 Classification by Certification / Quality
Response
S.No Variables
Yes (%) No(%) Total (%)
1. Certification
1.1 NAAC Accreditation 465 (66.43) 235 (33.57) 700 (100)
1.2 ISO 23 (3.29) 677 (96.71)
2 Research department 619 (88.43) 81 (11.57) 700 (100)
3 Institute Library and Usage 700 0 700 (100)
4 Computer Facility 384 (54.86) 316 (45.14) 700 (100)
Network / Consortia based

5 700 0 700 (100)
membership and training
17
From the above table 5.14 it is clear that 23 (3.29%) institutions are ISO certified
and 677 (96.71%) are not. 465 (66.43%) are accredited by the NAAC. 235 (33.57%) of the
institutions does not have NAAC accreditation. Majority of the institutions were accredited by
NAAC and still few of the institutions are yet to get the same. It is the primary duty of the
colleges to get accredited to enjoy the privileges and other concessions provided by them.
Students also prefer to get the admissions from accredited institutions. Serial No. 2 shows that
619 (88.43%) researchers said that there are research departments in their institutions Whereas
81 (11.57%) respondents replied that there are No research departments in their institutions.
Chart 5.14 Network / Consortia based membership & Computer Facility
CONSORTIA BASED MEMBERSHIP

&
COMPUTER FACILITY
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200 700
100
0
0
Yes
No
Total
Yes No Total
Network/Consortia based
100 0 700
membership
Computer Facility 100 0 700
In response to the question usage of institute library 700 (100%) of the research
scholars replied an affirmative way and no one is responded negatively. Thus it is important to
note all the researchers are using their library institute. Serial No. 4 reveals that 384 (54.86%)
18
libraries have the separate computer section for E-access and 316 (45.14%) of the libraries are
not have the separate computer room. It is to note that nearly half of the institutions not getting
separate computer room in their college library. For all institutions must provide E-access with
separate section for their students. It can raise their knowledge and access information in digital
way.
As the investigator conducting various awareness activities among the N-LIST
membership available colleges, No one is replied negative answer for the question Network /
Consortia based membership and training. 700 (100%) of the respondents are responded
positively.
5.5 INFORMATION GATHERING BEHAVIOR
Table 5.15 Classification by Need of E-resources
Variables Response
S.No
E-resources Yes (%) No(%) Total(%)
1 Need of E-resources 606(86.57) 94(13.43 700(100)

Chart 5.15 Classification by Need of E-resources
Yes (%) No(%)
13.43
86.57
Need of E-resources
19
Analysis of data in the table 5.15 Serial No.1 shows that 606 (86.57%) are expressed
their need of E-resources for the research and 94 (13.43%) are not.
Table 5.16 Classification by Reasons for using E-resources
Variables Response
S.No
Reasons for using e-resources Yes (%) No(%) Total(%)
2.1 Easy to access 576(82.29) 124(17.71)
2.2 Saves time 547(78.14) 153(21.86) 700(100)
2.3 Latest information 498(71.14) 202(28.86)
2.4 Latest techniques in research 602(86) 98(14)
Chart 5.16 Classification by Reasons for using E-resources
100 17.71
21.86
80 28.86 14
Percent
60
82.29
40 78.14
20 71.14 86
0
EASY TO ACCESS
SAVES TIME
LATEST
INFORMATION LATEST TECHNIQUES
IN RESEARCH
Yes (%) No(%)
Serial No. 2 gives details regarding reasons for using E-resources. 576 (82.29%) are
says Easy to accesss and 124 (17.71%) are not. 547 (78.14%) are expressed as saves time
20
and 153 (21.86%) are not. 498 (71.14%) are latest information and 202 (28.86%) are not. 602
(86%) are latest techniques in research and 98 (14%) are not.
From this analysis it is noted that most of the researchers are giving their reasons for
using E-resources is Latest techniques in research. It conclude E-resources is very useful for
research purpose.
Table 5.17 Classification by Reasons for not using E-resources
Variables Response
S.No
Reasons for not using e-resources Yes (%) No(%) Total(%)
3.1 Unimportant for my research topic 32(4.57) 668(95.43)
3.2 Subject coverage is limited 94(13.43) 606(86.57)

700(100
3.3 Unawareness of access mechanism 171(28.86) 529(71.14)
3.4 Prefer print-materials 94(13.43) 606(86.57)
Serial No. 3 explains that 32 (4.57%) are expressed E-resources is unimportant for my
research topic and 668 (95.43%) are not. Same as 94 (13.43%) are expressed that subject
coverage is limited but 606 (86.57%) are not. 171 (28.86%) are unawareness of access
mechanism and 529 (71.14%) are not. In this electronic world 94 (13.43%) are prefer print
materials and 606 (86.57%) are very eagerly using e-resources.
21
Chart 5.17 Classification by Reasons for not using E-resources
95.43
86.57 86.57
71.14
100
80
60
iPERCENT
28.86
40 13.43 13.43 No(%)
4.57
20 Yes (%)
0
Unimportant for Subject coverage Unawareness of Prefer print-
my research is limited access materials
topic mechanism
Yes (%) No(%)
Here we noted that, maximum users are marked as unaware of access mechanism. Thus
conducting awareness programs is needed for the users.
Table 5.18 Classification by Training by library Professionals
Variables Response
S.No
Training by library Professionals Yes (%) No(%) Total(%)
4.1 Training by library Professionals 567(81) 133(19) 700(100)
Chart 5.18 Classification by Training by library Professionals
TRAINING BY LIBRARY PROFESSIONALS

No(%), 19
Yes (%), 81
22
Serial No. 4 shows that 567 (81%) replied that training was given by library
professionals for access E-resources in their library whereas 133 (19%) say that the library does
not provide any adequate training for accessing E-resources. For access E-resources, training
is a must for the best usage of E-resources among the users. Most of the institutions are
providing sufficient training but very rarely is not.
Table 5.19 Classification by Purpose of E-resources
Variables Response
S.No
Purpose of E-resources Yes (%) No(%) Total(%)
5.1 Develop knowledge 497(71) 203(29)
5.2 To publish articles / papers 508(72.57) 192(27.43)
5.3 Paper presentation for seminar, conference 516(73.71) 184(26.29)

700(100)
5.4 Research purpose 603(86.14) 97(13.86)
5.5 Up to date information 547(78.14) 153(21.86)
5.6 Not using E-resources 94(13.43) 606(86.57)
Serial No. 5 depicts that 497 (71%) are their purpose is develop knowledge and 203
(29%) are not. 508 (72.57%) are to publish articles/papers whereas 192 (27.43%) are not. 516
(73.71) are their purpose is paper presentation for seminar, conference etc and 184 (26.29%)
are not, 603 (86.14%) researchers purpose are Research purpose and 97 (13.86%) are not.
547 (78.14%) are up-to-date information and 153 (21.86%) are not. In the same time, 94
(13.43%) are not using E-resources and 606 (86.57%) are using E-resources for the purpose of
23
anyone reason of access E-resources. Most of the researchers are using E-resources for their
research only the study is mainly about researchers
Chart 5.19 Classification by Purpose of E-resources
100
86.14
78.14
80 72.57 73.71
60
40 27.43 26.29
21.86
13.43 13.86
20 0
0
497(71) 203(29)
YES (%) NO(%)
To publish articles / papers Paper presentation for seminar, conference

Research purpose Up to date information
Not using E-resources
Table 5.20 Classification by stage / level of aware from the Researchers.
Sl. Variables Response

No Level / Stage of aware, use & access
Frequency Percentage Total(%)
of e-resources
1.1 Aware only 94 13.43
1.2 Unaware - - 700(100)

Both aware, use and access
1.3 606 86.57
24
Chart 5.20 Classification by stage / level of aware from the Researchers.
90
80
70
86.57
60
Percent
50
40 13.43
30
20
10
0
Aware only Both aware, use and access
Series1 13.43 86.57
Awareness level
From the above Table 5.20 serial No. 1 shows that 94 (13.43%) are aware only on E-
resources, 606 (86.57%) are both aware, use and accesss of E-resources but No one is say
unaware of e-resources.
Table 5.21 Classification by aware e-resources

No
Aware on e-resources Frequency Percentage Total(%)
2.1 None - -
2.2 A little I Know 308 44 700(100)
2.3 A lot I Know 392 56
25
Chart 5.21 Classification by aware e-resources
A little I Know A lot I Know
56%
44% 56%
Serial No. 2 explains that 308 (44%) are aware a little whereas 392 (56%) are in aware
of a lot and none of them are unaware about e-resources. It is clear that whether they are
using or not but all are aware of electronic resources.
5.6 AWARENESS ABOUT E-RESOURCES
Awareness of e-resources can be classified and based on the E-resources awareness
about E-sources, resources, search engine, bibliographic databases, open access e-resources,
electronic information services are in the following Tables.
Table 5.22 Classification of awareness on e-resources
Variable Opinion / No of Respondents

Sl.No
E-Sources Aware Unaware Total
1.1 Internet 700 -
1.2 CD Rom Data Bases 651(93) 49(7)
1.3 E-mail 700 - 700 (100)
1.3 CD Rom 700 -
1.4 Audio Visual Sources 700 -
26
Chart 5.22 Classification of awareness on e-resources
100 100 100 100

93
percent
7
0 0 0 0
INTERNET CD ROM DATA E-MAIL CD ROM AUDIO VISUAL
BASES SOURCES
AWARENESS
aware unaware
The above table Serial No. 1 shows that 700 (0%) respondents are aware of the internet,
E-mail, CD Rom and Audio Visual Sources and No one is responded as unaware and
651(93%) are aware of CD Rom Databases and 49 (7%) are unaware.
Table 5.23 Classification of e-resources

Sl.No
E-Resources Aware Unaware Total
2.1 E-book 671 (95.86) 29 (4.14)
2.2 E-journal 697 (99.57) 3 (0.43)
2.3 E-databases 684 (97.71) 16 (2.29)
2.4 E-theses 678 (96.86) 22 (3.14)

700 (100)
2.5 Online Catalogue 591(84.43) 109 (15.57)
2.6 Subject Gateways 310 (44.29) 390 (55.71)
2.7 Portals 384 (54.86) 316 (45.14)
2.8 Web blogs 326 (46.57) 374 (53.43)
27
Chart 5.23 Classification of e-resources
100% 4.14 0.43 2.29 3.14

90% 15.57
80%
70%
55.71 45.14
percent
60% 53.43
50% 95.86 99.57
97.71
40% 96.86
30% 84.43
20%
10% 44.29 54.86
0% 46.57
Axis Title
aware unaware
Serial No. 2 highlighted about the Electronic resources and its awareness among the
respondents. It shows that 671 (95.86%) research scholars are aware of E-books and 29 (4.14%)
are unaware of e-books, 697 (99.57%) are aware of E-journals and 3 (0.43%) are unaware of
e-journals, 684 (97.71%) are aware of E-database whereas 16 (2.29%) were not aware of E-
database, 678 (96.86%) are aware of E-theses and 22 (3.14%) are not, 591 (84.43%)
respondents are aware of online catalogues whereas109 (15.57%) are not aware, 310 (44.29%)
are aware of subject gateways whereas (390 (55.71%) are unaware, 384 (54.86%) are aware of
Portals and 316 (45.14%) are unaware and 326 (46.57%) are aware of Web blogs and 374
(53.43%) are unaware of web blogs of e-resources. From the analysis most of the respondent
are aware of E-journals, E-databases, E-theses and E-books. It is clear that the younger
generation has very much aware of digital culture.
28
Table 5.24 Classification of Search Engine

Sl.No
Search Engine Aware Unaware Total
3.1 Google 698 (99.71) 2 (0.29)
3.3 Yahoo 694 (99.14) 6 (0.86)
3.4 MSN 597 (85.29) 103 (14.71)
3.5 Info Seek 490 (70) 210 (30)

700 (100)
3.6 Ask 660 (94.29) 40 (5.71)
3.7 Lycos 546 (78) 154 (22)
3.8 Excite 433 (61.86) 267 (38.14)
3.9 Web crawler 402 (57.43) 298 (42.57)
From the above Table serial No. 3 shows that 698 (99.71%) are aware of Google search
engine and2 (0.29%) are not aware of it, 694 (99.14%) are aware of Yahoo and 6 (0.86%) are
unaware, 597 (85.29%) respondent are aware of MSN search engine whereas 103 (14.71%)
are not aware, 490 (70%) are aware of Info seek and 210 (30%) are not aware, 660 (94.29%)
respondents are aware of Ask search Engine and 40 (5.71%) are not aware 546 (78%)
respondents are aware of Lycos and 40 (5.71%) are unaware, 433 (61.86%) are aware of Excite
and 267 (38.14%) are not, 402 (57.43%) respondents are aware of web crawler whereas 298
(42.57%) respondents are unaware (Figure 5.6). From the analysis it is known those who are
doing research in various categories are very familiar and using Google search Engine because
of its popularity.
29
Chart 5.24 Classification of Search Engine
Search Engine
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Google Yahoo MSN Info Ask Lycos Excite Web
Seek crawler
Aware 698 694 597 490 660 546 433 402
Unawares 2 6 103 210 40 154 267 298
Total 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Table 5.25 Classification of Bibliographic database

Sl.No
Bibliographic database Aware Unaware Total
4.1 Compendex on EI Village 304 (43.43) 396 (56.57)
4.2 Web of science 401(57.29) 299 (42.71)

700 (100)
4.3 Maths Sci Net 508 (72.57) 192 (27.43)
4.4 Science finder Scholar 396 (56.57) 304 (43.43)
As far as Bibliographic Databases are concerned in serial No. 4 that 304 (43.43%)
respondents are known Compendex on EI Village and 396 (56.57%) are not, 401(57.29%) are
familiar to know web of science and 299 (42.71%) are do not know about it, 508(72.57%)
respondents are know about Maths Sci Net and 192 (27.43%) are do not know, whereas 396
30
(56.57%) respondents are aware of Science finder scholar and remaining 304 (43.43%) are
not.
Chart 5.25 Classification of Bibliographic database
56.57 72.57
80 56.57 43.43
57.29 42.71
27.43
60 43.43
percent
40
20 u
a
0
Compendex on EI Web of science Maths Sci Net Science finder
Village Scholar
aware unaware
Table 5.26 Classification of Open Access E-resources

Sl.No
Open Access E-resources Aware Unaware Total
5.1 Open Access e-journals 694 (99.14) 6 (0.86)
5.2 Open access directories 538 (76.86) 162 (23.14) 700 (100)
5.3 IRs @ member institution 408 (58.29) 292 (41.71)
31
Chart 5.26 Classification of Open Access E-resources
0.86, 1%
58.29, 25%
23.14, 35%
99.14, 42%
41.71, 64%
76.86, 33%
Open Access e-journals Open access directories IRs @ member institution
Serial No. 5 reveals that 694 (99.14%) respondents replied that they are aware of the
open access e-journals and 6 (0.86%) research scholars are not aware of them. 538 (76.86%)
respondents replied that they are aware of open access directories and 162 (23.14%) are not
aware of the open access directories 408 (58.29%) opined that they are aware of the IRs @
member institutions and 292 (41.71%) research scholars are not aware.
Table 5.27 Classification of Electronic Information Service
Sl.No Electronic Information Total

Aware Unaware
Service
6.1 CD Rom search Service 653 (93.29) 47 (6.71)
6.2 Online database service 594 (84.86) 106 (15.14)
6.3 Internet Service 688 (98.29) 12 (1.71) 700 (100)
6.4 Media Service 634 (90.57) 66 (9.43)
6.5 OPAC 671(95.86) 29 (4.14)
32
Chart 5.27 Classification of Electronic Information Service
120
100 98.29
93.29 95.86
90.57
84.86
80
PERCENT
60
40
20
15.14
6.71 9.43
1.71 4.14
0
CD Rom search Online database Internet Service Media Service OPAC
Service service
aware unaware
Serial No. 6 the data in the table reveals that 653 (93.29%) are aware of CD Rom
Search Service and 47 (6.71%) are not aware. 594 (84.86%) are aware of Online database
Service and 106 (15.14%) are not aware. 688 (98.29%) are aware of Internet Service and 12
(1.71%) are unaware of it. 634 (90.57%) are aware of Media Service and 66 (9.43%) are not.
671 (95.86%) are aware of OPAC (On line Public Access Catalogue) and 29 (4.14%) are not
aware of OPAC.
It is clear that everyone is aware of E-resources either little or lot but use and access
rate is in decreasing level.
5.7 USE OF E-RESOURCES
Use of e-resources are analyzed is terms use of preferred format, frequency of type of
e-resources, using search tools, period of usage, access speed and the rate the quality of
research while using e-resources are presented in the following Table 5.7
33
Table 5.28 Classification by Utilization of E-resources with Format of E-resources
Response
Sl.No Format
Frequency Percentage Total (%)
1. Print 32 4.57
2. Electronic 564 88.57

700 (100)
3. Both 104 14.86
Total 700 100
Chart 5.28 Classification by Utilization of E-resources with Format of E-resources
Usage of format
4%
14%
Print
Electronic
Both
82%
From the above Table No. 5.7 it can be seen that Format for using E-resources 32
(4.57%) respondents prefer to use print formats while using e-resources, 564 (88.57%) of them
34
prefer to use electronic formats and 104 (14.86%) respondents browse both print as well as
electronic formats.
Table 5.29 Classification by Utilization of various types of E-resources
Rank / No of Respondents
Weighted Weighted
S.No Description Rank
Score average
1 2 3 4 5
1. E-book 294 355 18 21 12 2816 4.02 4
2 E-journal 392 267 15 12 14 2931 4.18 1
3 E-databases 405 205 38 24 28 2879 4.11 2
4 E-theses 398 107 86 72 37 2850 4.07 3
Table 5.30 Classification by Frequency of various types of E-resources
CD
Online
Rom Web
E.Books E.Journals E.Theses E.Catalogues Data
Data Sites
S. bases
Frequency bases
No
Res Res Res Res Res Res Res
289 327 104 106 227 201 210

1 Daily
(41.28) (46.17) (14.86) (15.14) (32.43) (28.71) (30)
Once it a
2 208 201 207 111 194 232 204
week
35
(29.71) (28.71) (29.57) (15.86) (27.71) (33.14) (29.14)
136 114 288 195 155 104 201

Twice in a
3
Week
(19.43) (16.29) (41.14) (27.86) (22.14) (14.86) (28.71)
35 26 69 256 92 131 53
4 Rarely
(5) (3.71) (9.86) (36.57) (13.14) (18.71) (7.57)
Not Using 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
5 E-
resources (4.57) (4.57) (4.57) (4.57) (4.57) (4.57) (4.57)
700 700 700 700 700 700 700

Total
(99.99) (99.45) (100) (100) (99.99) (99.99) (99.99
The above Table shows that 289 (41.28%) research scholars are using E-books Daily
for their research and 208 (29.71%) are once in a week 136 (19.43%) are twice in a week
35 (5%) are rarely using E-resources and 32 (4.57%) are not using E-books. 327 (46.17%)
are using Journals Daily 201 (28.71%) are once in a week 114 (16.29%) are twice in a
week 26 (3.71%) are rarely and 32 (4.57%) are not using e-journals. And 104 (14.86%) are
using E-Thesis daily and 207 (29.57%) are once in a week 288 (41.14%) are twice in a week
69 (9.86%) are rarely and 32 (4.57%) are not using E-theses 106 (15.14%) are using E-
Catalogue Daily 111 (15.86%) are once in a week 195 (27.86%) are twice in a week 256
(36.57%) are rarely 32 (4.57%) are not using E-Catalogue. 227(32.43%) are using CD Rom
Data bases Daily, 194 (27.71%) are once in a week, 155 (22.14%) are twice in a week, 92
(13.14%) are rarely and 32 (4.57%) respondents are not using E-resources. 201 (28.71%) are
using Online Data bases Daily, 232 (33.14%) are once in a week, 104 (14.86%) are twice in a
week, 131 (18.71%) are using rarely and 32 (4.57%) are not using Online Data bases. 210
36
(30%) are using Websites Daily, 204 (29.14%) once in a week, 201 (28.71%) twice in a week
53 (7.57%) rarely and 32 (4.57%) are not using Websites.
Table 5.31 Classification of using search tools
Variable Response
Sl.No
Using Search tools Yes (%) No (%) Total (%)
1.1 Search engine 642 (91.71) 58 (8.29)
1.2 Information gateways 549 (78.43) 151 (21.57)
1.3 Scholarly database 599 (85.57) 101 (14.43) 700 (100)
1.4 Subject directories 388 (55.43) 312 (44.57)
1.5 None of the above 32 (4.57) 668 (95.43)
Chart 5.31 Classification of using search tools
100% 8.29
90% 21.57 14.43
80%
70% 44.57
PERCENT
60%
50% 91.71
40% 78.43 85.57 95.43
30%
20% 55.43
10%
0%
Search engine
Information 4.57
gateways Scholarly
database Subject
directories None of the
above
aware unaware
From the above table 5.10 shows that the search tools used for locating E-information.
642 (91.71%) are using search engine and 58 (8.29%) are not. 549 (78.43%) are using
37
information gateways for locating information and 151 (21.57%) are not. 599 (85.57%) are
using scholarly databases and 101 (14.43%) are not. 388 (55.43%) are using subject
directories for locating E-resources and 312 (44.57%) are not. 32 (4.57%) are not using any
search tools. 668 (95.43%) are using search tools for locating information. It is clear that search
engines are the most popular sources for locating E-information. It is a well-known fact that
even for locating e-databases, search engine help is necessary.
Table 5.32 Classification of Frequency of using E-resources
Frequency Response
Sl.No
Period of using E-
resources
1.1 Below 6 months 7 1.0
1.2 Below 1 Year 92 13.14
1.3 1-2 Years 65 9.29 700 (100)
1.4 2-3 Years 146 20.86
1.5 More than 3 years 358 51.14
1.6 Not using E-Resources 32 4.57
From the above table the respondents were asked how frequently they do use E-
resources. 7 (1.0%) are using below 6 months 92 (13.14%) are below 1 year 65 (9.29%) are
1-2 years 146 (20.86%) are 2-3 years 358 (51.14%) are more than 3 years and 32 (4.57%)
are not using E-resources. Most of the researchers are using E-resources More than 3 years.
38
Chart 5.32 Classification of Frequency of using E-resources
Not using E-
Resources , 4.57, 5%
Below 1 Year, 13.14,
Below 6 months, 1, 13%
1%
1-2 Years, 9.29, 9% Below 6 months
More than 3 years,
51.14, 51% 2-3 Years, 20.86, Below 1 Year
21% 1-2 Years
2-3 Years
More than 3 years
Not using E-Resources
Table 5.33 Classification of access speed and in the use of E-resources
Frequency Response
Sl.No
If you are using, Rate the
typical Access speed
2.1 Very fast 145 20.71
2.2 Fast 248 35.43
2.3 Slow 187 26.71 700 (99.99)
2.4 Very Slow 88 12.57
2.5 Dont Know 32 4.57
39
Chart 5.33 Classification of access speed and in the use of E-resources
35.43
40
26.71
percent 30 20.71
20 Very fast
12.57
4.57 Fast
10
Slow
0
Very Slow
Very fast
Fast
Slow Dont Know
Very
Slow Dont
Know
Acess speed
Serial No. 2 reveals that 145 (20.71%) respondents are say the access speed was very
fast and 248 (35.43%) are say fast 187 (26.71%) are slow access speed and 88 (12.57%)
are say very slow in access speed. 32 (4.57%) are say dont know
Table 5.34 Classification of quality of research in the use of E-resources
Frequency Response
Sl.No
Quality of research in the
use of E-Resources
3.1 Improved very much 188 26.86
3.2 Improved 349 49.86
3.3 Improved slightly 111 15.86 700 (100.01)
3.4 Not improved 20 2.86
3.5 Dont Know 32 4.57
Serial No. 3 explains about the quality of research while using E-resources for their
research. 188 (26.86%) researchers quality was improved very much while using E-resources,
40
349 (49.86%) researchers quality was improved and 111 (15.86%) researchers quality was
improved slightly 20 (2.86%) researchers quality was not improved and 32 (4.57%)
researchers say Dont know. Anyhow, Researchers while using E-resources in their research
their quality of research was improved a lot
Chart 5.34 Classification of quality of research in the use of E-resources
NOT USING E-RESOURCES 4.57

QUALITY OF RESEARCH
DONT KNOW 4.57
NOT IMPROVED 2.86
IMPROVED SLIGHTLY 15.86
IMPROVED 49.86
IMPROVED VERY MUCH 26.86
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PERCENT
5.8 ACCESS OF E-RESOURCES
Table 5.35 Classification by access E-resources with location.
Variable Response
Sl.No
Location to access E-Resources Frequency Percentage Total %
1.1 On campus 244 34.86
1.2 Off campus 178 25.43

700 (100)
1.3 Both 246 35.14
1.4 Dont Know 32 4.57
41
Chart 5.35 Classification by access E-resources with location.
4.57, 5%
34.86, 35%
35.14, 35%
25.43, 25%
On campus Off campus Both Dont Know
From the above table it can be seen the e-resources access location that 244 (34.86%)
respondents access the e-resources at their Campus and 178 (25.43%) research scholars
replied that they access e-resources outside campus like computer centers, other libraries and
home. Majority of the respondents 246 (35.14%) say access e-resources both on campus and
off campus location. But 32 (4.57%) says Dont know.
Table 5.36 Classification by access E-resources with Mode of accessibility
Variable Response
Sl.No
Mode of accessibility Frequency Percentage Total %
2.1 Campus wide through authentication 127 18.14
2.2 User ID / Password 326 46.57
2.3 Only in the Library 261 37.29
2.4 Dont know 32 4.57
42
Chart 5.36 Classification by access E-resources with Mode of accessibility
PERCENT
46.57
37.29
18.14
4.57
Campus wide through / IP User ID / Password Only in the Library Dont know
authentication
MODE OF ACCESSIBILITY
Serial No. 2 reveals that 127 (18.14%) respondents mode of accessibility were campus
wide through IP authentication. 326 (46.57%) are access through user ID /Pass word 261
(37.29%) are access at library and 32 (4.57%) are says dont know.
Table 5.37 Classification by access E-resources with Browsing information
Sl. Variable Response
No Browse of information from internet Frequency Percentage Total %
3.1 From the Web address directly 131 18.71 700
3.2 Use search engines 321 45.86
3.3 Use subscription database 258 36.86
3.4 None of the above 32 4.57
43
Chart 5.37 Classification by access E-resources with Browsing information
60
50
45.86
40 From the Web address
36.86
PERCENT directly
30 Use search engines
20 18.71 Use subscription
10 database
4.57 None of the above
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
-10
ACCESS
Serial No. 3 explains that 131 (18.71%) respondents are browse the information from
the Web address directly 321 (45.86%) Use search engines 258 (36.86) were use
subscription database 32 (4.57%) were not browsing from internet.
Table 5.38 Classification by access E-resources with Search method.
Variable Response
Sl.No
Search method Frequency Percentage
4.1 Title wise search 151 21.57
4.2 Author wise search 160 22.86
4.3 Key word pertain to title 165 23.6
4.4 Key word pertain to author 52 7.43
4.5 Publisher wise 86 12.29
4.6 Subject wise 159 22.71
4.7 Dont know 32 4.57

Note: Respondents allowed selecting multiple options n=700
44
Chart 5.38 Classification by access E-resources with Search method.
Dont know 4.57

ACESS BY SEARCH METHOD
Subject wise 22.71

Publisher wise 12.29
Key word pertain to author 7.43
Key word pertain to title 23.6
Author wise search 22.86
Title wise search 21.57
0 5 10 15 20 25
PERCENT
Serial No. 4 reveals that 151 (21.65%) respondents are searching through title wise
160 (22.86%) are author wise 165 (23.6%) are key word pertain to title 52 (7.4%) are
keyword pertain to author 86 (12.3%) are publisher wise 159 (22.71%) are searching
information through subject wise and 32 (4.6%) respondents say Dont know.
Table 5.39 Classification by advanced search facilities to access E-resources.
Not
Never Some times Often
required
Sl.No Advanced searches
Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
1 Boolean logic 427 (61%)

78
101 (14.43%) 94 (13.43%)
(11.14%)
2 Truncation 356 152

98 (14%) 94 (13.43%)
(50.86%) (21.71%)
3 Phrases 158 401

47 (6.71%) 94 (13.43%)
(22.57%) (57.29%)
45
4 Wild Cards 220 178
208 (29.71%) 94 (13.43%)
(31.43%) (25.43%)
The above table No. 5.39 explains about the advanced searches Boolean logic,
Truncation, Phrases and Wild Cards. In Boolean operation 101 (14.43%) respondents say
Never 427 (61%) Some times 78 (11.14 %) Often and 94 (13.43%) says Not required
advanced search of Boolean logic. In truncation 98 (14 %) Never 356 (50.86%) are some
times 152 (21.71%) are often and 94 (13.43%) are says Not required. 47 (6.71%)
respondents never use Phrases 158 (22.57%) are some times 401 (57.29%) are often and
94 (13.43%) says not required. In Wild Cards 208 (29.71%) Never use 220 (31.43%) are
some times 178 (25.43%) are often and 94 (13.43%) are says Not required Wild Cards.
Mostly all are using simple search methods.
Table 5.40 Classification by the preferred devices to store information

No
Devices to store information Frequency Percentage
1.1 CD Rom 279 39.86
1.2 Floppy - -
1.3 Pen drive 611 87.29
1.4 Hard disc 71 10.14
1.5 Not at al 32 4.57
46
Chart 5.40 Classification by the preferred devices to store information
100
80
PERCENT
60
40 87.29
20 39.86
10.14 4.57
0 0
CD Rom Floppy Pen drive Hard disc Not at al
DEVICES TO STORE INFO
There are number of devices available to store information. From the above table 5.40
shows that 279 (39.86%) of the respondents are store information in CD Rom No one is using
Floppy 611 (87.29%) respondents are store information in Pen drive 71 (10.14%)
respondents are using Hard disc and 32 (4.57%) respondents are not using any devices.
Table 5.41 Classification by the various methods to access / store information other than
Devices.
Variables Response
Sl. No
Method of information access /
Frequency Percentage
store other than Devices
2.1 Take Printout 341 48.71
2.2 Only reading 51 7.29
2.3 Save in Mail 368 52.17
As seen from the above Table 5.41 it is found that 341 (48.71%) of the researchers
make access / store information through taking print out 51 (7.29%) of the respondents are
47
get only reading and 368 (52.17%) of the respondents are store the information in their mail.
Majorities of the researchers saving information in mail for future access.
Chart 5.41 Classification by the various methods to access / store information other
than Devices.
Take Printout,
48.71, 45%
Save in Mail, 52.17,
48%
Take Printout
Only reading
Save in Mail
Only reading, 7.29,

7%
5.9 CONSTRAINTS FACED BY THE RESEARCHERS IN USING / SEARCHING

INFORMATION IN LIBRARIES
Table 5.42 Classification of Problems faced while access E-Resources
Variables Response
Sl.No
Problems Frequency Percentage Total (%)
1.1 Yes 387 55.29
1.2 No 219 31.29 700 (100)
1.3 Dont know 94 13.43
48
Chart 5.42 Classification of Problems faced while access E-Resources
60 55.29
50
40
PERCENT
31.29
30
20 13.43
10
0
Yes No Dont know
AXIS TITLE
problems
In the above Table No. 5.42 explains that 387 (55.29%) are the respondents are facing
problems. 219 (31.29%) are not facing any problems. 94 (13.43%) of the respondents are said
Dont know.
Table 5.43 Classification of Type of problems faced
Rank
S. Weighted Weighted
Description
No Score average
1 2 3 4 5
1 Slow access speed 421 185 41 18 35 3039 4.34 1
2 Lack of time 305 301 8 11 75 2850 4.07 3
3 Insufficient nodes 241 365 0 57 37 2816 4.02 4
Lack of ICT 386 230 13 39 32 2999 4.28 2

4 knowledge of
staff for help
49
5.43 SUGGESTIONS / REMEDIES WHICH MAY HELP THE RESEARCHERS TO
USE THE LIBRARY IN AN EFFICIENT WAY
Table 5.44. Classification of Opinion about library facilities, sources and services
Opinion about library

Sl.
facilities, sources and Excellent Good Moderate Poor
No
services
General opinion about 141

1 infrastructure facilities in the 143 (20.43) 222 (31.71) 194 (27.71)
library (20.14)
Service provided by the 20

2 library staff 271 (38.71) 299 (42.71) 110 (15.71)
(2.86)
156
3 Variety of information 169 (24.14) 231 (33) 144 (20.57) (22.29)

sources
The above Table 5.44 shows that the respondents were asked about the general
opinion about infrastructure facilities and other library sources and services. 143 (20.43%)
research scholars said that have excellent library facilities and 222 (31.71%) opined that
good facilities in the library. 194 (27.71%) are said moderate and 141 (20.14%) are said
that the library facilities are poor.
Library is the heart of every institution. The libraries growth depends on the library
staff and their service. 271 (38.71%) of the respondents are excellent service of library staff.
299 (42.71%) are good and 110 (15.71%) are moderate and 20 (2.86%) are poor in service
of library staff. Libraries growth depends on also the variety of information sources. 169
50
(24.14%) are excellent 231 (33%) are good 144 (20.57%) are moderate and 156 (22.29%)
are poor in variety of information sources.
Table 5.45 Classification of Opinion about library staff
Variables Response
Sl.No
Opinion about library
staff
1.1 Friendly 679 97

700 (100)
1.2 Not Friendly 21 3
Chart 5.45 Classification of Opinion about library staff
library staff
Not Friendly, 3, 3%
Friendly, 97, 97%
Friendly Not Friendly
From the above Table 5.45 reveals that 679 (97%) of the respondents were said that the
library staff are Friendly whereas 21 (3%) are say library staff are Not friendly.
51
Table 5.46 Classification of overall opinion about E-resources in statements.
Strongly No Strongly
Sl.No STATEMENT Agree Disagree
agree opinion Disagree
Computer knowledge 32
294 312 18 44
1 is a must to access (4.57)
(42) (44.57) (2.57) (6.29)
E-resources
32
It provides quick 301 277 54 36
2 (4.57)
service to the users (43) (39.57) (7.71) (5.14)
Users can search on 32

386 230 13 39
3 their own (4.57)
(55.14) (32.86) (1.86) (5.57)
convenience
It is possible to satisfy
241 365 57 37(5.29)
4 the information needs 0
(34.43) (52.14) (8.14)
without E-resources
It is advisable to have 421 185 41 18 35(5)
5
a networking library (60.14) (26.43) (5.86) (2.57)
New technology in
the library make 410 196 3 91(13)
6 0
research more (58.57) (28) (0.43)
accurate
Overall, E-Sources is 75
305
7 very helpful in my 301(43) 8(1.14) 11(1.57) (10.71)
(43.57)
research
52
Table 5.47 Classification of statements of E-resources
Rank / No of Respondents Weighted Weighted Rank

S.No Description
1 2 3 4 5 Score average
Computer knowledge
294 312 18 44 32
1 is a must to access 2892 4.13 4
E-resources
It provides quick
301 277 54 36 32
2 service to the 2879 4.11 5
users
Users can search
386 230 13 39 32
3 on their own 2999 4.28 2
convenience
It is possible to
satisfy the
365 57 37
4 information 241 0 2816 4.02 7
needs without
E-resources
It is advisable to
have a 421 185 41 18 35
5 3039 4.34 1
networking
library
New technology
in the library 410 3 91
6 196 0 2931 4.18 3
make research
more accurate
Overall, E-
Sources is very 305 75
7 301 8 11 2850 4.07 6
helpful in my
research
53
5.1.2 PART- II
DISCUSSIONABOUT AWARE, USE AND ACCESS
ABOUT N-LIST
INTRODUCTION:
In this part analysis only on N-List. Firstly it analyzed awareness status followed by
types of E-resources accessed by the Researchers in N-List. Secondly it has been analyzed
place and purpose of access through N-List. There is some special features were also analyzed.
There adequacy, frequency, importance and the value, opinion on N-List were analyzed.
Through N-list what are the benefits got by the researchers and the results through conducting
awareness program are also analyzed.
TABLE: 5.48 CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSCRIBING N-LIST
Variable Response
Sl.
No
Subscribing N-List is a boon to Total (
Researchers % )
1.1 Yes 606 86.57
1.2 No - 700
(100)
1.3 Dont know 94 13.43
54
CHART: 5.48 CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSCRIBING N-LIST
RESPONSE
100
90
80
70
iPERCENT
60
50 86.57
40
30
20 13.43
0
10
0
YES NO DONT KNOW
Axis Title
In part II, above Table No. 5.48, serial No. 1 reveals that 606 (86.57%) of the
respondents are expressed that N-LIST is a boon for research, No one is not expressed as No
and 94 (13.43%) are expressed Dont know.
TABLE: 5.49 CLASSIFICATION OF AWARE, USE AND ACCESS E-RESOURCES
THROUGH N-LIST PROJECT.
Variable Response
Sl.
No
Total (
Aware, Use and Access of N-List Frequency Percentage
% )
2.1 Aware only 94 13.43
700
2.2 Unaware - -
(100)
2.3 Both aware, Use and Access 606 86.57
55
CHART: 5.49 CLASSIFICATION OF AWARE, USE AND ACCESS E-RESOURCES
AWARE AND USE

100
90 86.57
80
70
60
PERCENT
50
40
30
20
13.43
10
0
0
Aware only Unaware Both aware, Use and Access
Axis Title
AWARE AND USE
Serial No. 2 find out that 94 (13.43%) of the respondents are aware of N-LIST and
No one is not aware. Furthermore, 606 (86.57%) of them are both aware, use and Access of
the N-LIST.
TABLE: 5.50 CLASSIFICATION OF REASONS FOR USE AND ACCESS OF N-LIST
Variable Response
Sl.
No
Reasons for not use and access of N-List Frequency Percentage Total ( % )
3.1 No provision for Regional language - -

700 (100)
3.2 Unawareness of access mechanism - -
56
3.3 Prefer print materials - -
3.4 All the above 94 13.43 700 (100)
3.5 None of the above 606 86.57
CHART: 5.50 CLASSIFICATION OF REASONS FOR NOT USE AND ACCESS
OF N-LIST
13.43
86.57
No provision for Regional language Unawareness of access mechanism

Prefer print materials All the above
None of the above
Serial no 3 the reason for not using N-LIST as No provision for regional language
unawareness of access mechanism prefer print materials and not the above three reasons
for the respondents of 606 (86.57).It can be observed that most of the Research scholars are
interested to access E-resources at N-LIST.
57
2. TYPE OF E-RESOURCES AT N-LIST PROJECT.
E-journals Response
Sl. No
Type of E-resources access
Yes (%) No (%) Total (%)
at N-LIST
1.1 E-Book 355(50.71) 345(49.29)
700 (100)
1.2 E-Journal 615(87.86) 85(12.14)
1.3 Bibliographic Databases 497(71) 203(29)
1.4 Not using N-List E- 94 (13.43) 606 (86.57)

resources
TABLE: 5.51 CLASSIFICATION OF TYPE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS

CHART: 5.51 CLASSIFICATION OF TYPE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS
THROUGH N-LIST PROJECT
58
TYPE OF E-RESOURCES
100
87.86
90
80 71
70
60
PERCENT
50.71 49.29
50
40
29
30
20 12.14 13.43
10 2.8
0
E-Book E-Journal Bibliographic Databases Not using N-List E-
resources
YES NO
The above Table No 5.51 reveals that 355 (50.71%) respondents are access E-book N-
LIST and 345 (49.29%) are not access at N-LIST. 615 (87.86%) are access E-journals and 85
(12.14%) are not, 497 (71%) are access Bibliographic Databases and 203 (29%) are not access
Bibliographic Databases at N-LIST. 94 (13.43%) respondents are not using N-List E-resources
and the highest number 606 (86.57%) respondents are using N-List.
The table reflects that quite a large chunk of Research Scholars 615 (87.86) are access
N-List.
TABLE: 5.52 CLASSIFICATION OF TYPE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS
Rank
Description
No Score average
1 2 3 4 5
1 E-book 294 355 18 21 12 2816 4.05 4
59
2 E-journals 392 267 15 12 14 2931 4.18 1
Bibliographic 401 200 50 26 23 2850 4.07 3

3
Databases
4 Not using 394 102 96 68 40 2879 4.11 2
3. PLACE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS AT N-LIST PROJECT.
TABLE: 5.53 CLASSIFICATION OF PLACE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS

Response
Sl.
E-journals
No
1 Place of access N-List E-resources
1.1 At College Library 337(48.14) 363(51.86)
1.2 At Departmental Library 348(49.71) 352(50.29)
1.3 Computer Centre/ Lab 368(52.57) 332(47.43)
1.4 Other libraries 267(38.14) 433(61.86) 700 (100)
1.5 Internet Caf 189(27) 511(73)
60
1.6 Own Computer/Lap top (at home 566(80.86) 134(19.14)
and other places)
1.7 Mobile Phone/PDA (at any place) 181(25.86) 519(74.14)
1.8 None of the above 94(13.43) 606(86.57)
The above Table No. 5.53 shows that the majority of the respondents 566 (80.86%) are
using own computer at home and Lap top at any place and 134 (19.14%) are not. 337 (48.14%)
are depended upon college library and 363 (51.86%) are not. 348 (49.71%) are retrieving N-
List at Departmental Library and 352 (50.29%) are not, 368 (52.57%) respondents are indicates
that access E-Resources through N-LIST at Computer Centre and 332 (47.43%) are not, 267
(38.14%) are visiting other libraries and 433 (61.86%) are not, 189 (27%) respondents are
access N-List at Internet Caf and 511 ( 73%) are not, 181 (25.86%) are having their access at
Mobile Phone at any place and 519 (74.14%) are not. Only 94 (13.43%) are not and 606
(86.57%) are choosing anyone place for access N-LIST E-Resources.
CHART: 5.53 CLASSIFICATION OF PLACE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS

61
None of the above 13.43 86.57
Mobile Phone/PDA (at any place) 25.86 74.14
Own Computer/Lap top (at home and other places) 80.86 19.14
PLACE OF ACCESS
Internet Caf 27 73
Other libraries 38.14 61.86
Computer Centre/ Lab 52.57 47.43
At Departmental Library 49.71 50.29
At College Library 48.14 51.86
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PERCENT
YES NO
This indicates that most of the research scholars are interested to access N-List at own
computer and Lap top, because of it is the most preferable and at any convenient place.
4. PURPOSE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS THROUGH N-LIST PROJECT
To know the purpose of use and access of N-List is a must for the investigator. Keeping this
aspect in mind, asked to indicate the purpose of using N-List. Their response were given in the
following table.
TABLE: 5.54 CLASSIFICATION OF PURPOSE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS

E-journals Response
Sl.
No
Purpose of use and access N-
LIST
62
1.1 For teaching 402(57.43) 298(42.57)
1.2 For writing research reports 619(88.43) 81(11.57)
1.3 For writing journal articles 417(59.57) 283(40.43)

700 (100)
1.4 To keep abreast in the field 54(7.71) 646(92.29)
1.5 None of the above 94(13.43) 606(86.57)
CHART: 5.54 CLASSIFICATION OF PURPOSE OF E-RESOURCES ACCESS

YES NO
100 92.29
88.43 86.57
90
80
70
57.43 59.57
60
PERCENT
50 42.57 40.43
40
30
20 11.57 13.43
7.71
10
0
For teaching For writing research For writing journal To keep abreast in None of the above
reports articles the field
The above Table No. 5.54 shows that 402 (57.43%) respondents are For
teaching and 298 (42.57%) are not, 619 (88.43%) are for writing research reports and 81
(11.57%) are not, 417 (59.57%) are For writing journal articles and 283 ( 40.43%) are not. 54
(7.71%) respondents are To keep abreast in the field and 646 ( 92.29%) are not. 94 (13.43%)
are not any purpose whereas 606 (86.57%) are using N-LIST for anyone purpose.
63
Hence, the purpose of use and access of N-List largely depends on for writing
research reports to develop their respective disciplines.
5. FEATURES OF N-LIST
Each Electronic source have a specific features, because of higher accessibility among
the users. It depends on locating the documents, access techniques and facilities to access
information in an easy way. The following table shows features in N-List.
TABLE: 5.55 CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIAL FEATURES OF E-RESOURCES
ACCESS THROUGH N-LIST PROJECT
Variable Response
Sl.
No Special features in use and access N-
LIST. if any, Frequency Percentage Total
1.1 Access resources on ones own place at any

time
599 85.57
1.2 RSS feed facilities to find current journals in

248 35.43
time
700
1.3 Setting-up E-mail Alerts and favorite journals 329 47
1.4 Locate the relevant information easily and

558 79.71
quickly
1.5 Dont know 94 13.43
Note: Respondents are permitted to multiple answers n=700
64
CHART: 5.55 CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIAL FEATURES OF E-RESOURCES
ACCESS THROUGH N-LIST PROJECT
100
100
PERCENT
100
100
100
85.57 79.71
47
35.43
13.43
AT OWN PLACE RSS FEED FACILITY SETTING MAIL DONT KNOW LOCATE EASILY
ALERTS
SPECIAL FEATURES OF E RESOURCES
ACCESS THROUGH N LIST TOTAL
Table 5.55 depicts that 599 (85.57%) are the respondents are Allows to access
resources on ones convenient place at any time 248 (35.43%) are RSS Feed facilities to find
current journals in time 329 (47%) are setting-up E-mail Alerts and favorite journals and 558
(79.71%) are locate the relevant information easily and quickly and 94 (13.43%) are Dont
know about the special features in N-List. Thus the respondents are using various access
techniques to locate the information for their research requirements.
6. ADEQUACY, PERIOD, FREQUENCY, and TIME SPENT FOR ACCESS AND
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION IN N-LIST
It must be noted down that the Adequacy of access E-resources is an important among
the researchers. At the same time how long years, hours and time they are using will give a
correct picture of usage of N-List. Their satisfaction also given in the following table.
TABLE: 5.56 CLASSIFICATION OF ADEQUACY OF N-LIST PROJECT.

65
SI. VARIABLE RESPONSE
NO
Adequacy of N-LIST Frequency Percentage Total (% )
1.1 Adequate 570 81.43
700 (100)
1.2 Inadequate 36 5.14
1.3 No idea 94 13.43
It is found from the Table 5.56 Serial No.1 shows that the adequate of N-List among
the respondents are 570 (81.43%) and 36 (5.4%) are inadequate. 94 (13.43%) are No idea
about the N-List. Thus it is important to note that Adequacy of N-List is higher than inadequate
of N-List.
CHART: 5.56 CLASSIFICATION OF ADEQUACY OF N-LIST PROJECT.
66
ADEQUACY
No idea, 13.43
Inadequate,
5.14
Adequate,
81.43
TABLE: 5.57 CLASSIFICATION OF PERIOD OF USE AND ACCESS ON N-LIST

PROJECT.
NO
Period of use and access N-LIST Total (%
)
2.1 Below 1 year 92 13.1
2.2 1-2 years 172 24.6

700 (100)
2.3 2-3 years 174 24.9
2.4 Above 3 years 168 24
2.5 Not using N-LIST 94 13.4
67
CHART: 5.57 CLASSIFICATION OF PERIOD OF USE AND ACCESS ON N-LIST
PROJECT
PERIOD OF USE
30
25 24.6 24.9 24
20
PERCENT
15
13.1 13.4
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PERIOD OF USE
Serial No 2 shows that 92 (13.1%) are use and access of N-List below 1 year,
172 (24.6%) are 1-2 years, 174 (24.9%) are 2-3 years, 168 (24%) are above 3 years 94
(13.4%) are Not using N-List. Here the highest period of use and access N-List is 2-3 years.
TABLE: 5.58 CLASSIFICATION OF FREQUENCY OF USE OF N-LIST PROJECT.
NO
Frequency of use and access Frequency Percentage Total (% )
3.1 Almost Daily 210 30
700 (100)
3.2 Frequently 240 34.29
3.3 Occasionally 156 22.29
3.4 Never 94 13.43
68
CHART: 5.58 CLASSIFICATION OF FREQUENCY OF USE OF N-LIST PROJECT.
45
40
35
30
PERCENT
25
20
34.29
15 30
10 22.29
5 13.43
0
ALMOST DAILY FREQUENTLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER
FRQUENCY OF USE
The above table explains that 210 (30%) Almost daily and 240 (34.29%) are frequently,
156 (22.29) are occasionally and 94 (13.43) are never use and access of N List.
TABLE: 5.59 CLASSIFICATION OF TIME SPENT IN ACCESSING N-LIST
NO
Time spent in accessing N-
Frequency Percentage Total (% )
LIST
4.1 1 hour 96 13.71
4.2 1 hours 275 39.29

700 (100)
4.3 2 hours 204 29.14
4.4 More than 2 hours 31 4.43
4.5 Not using N-LIST 94 13.43
69
CHART: 5.59 CLASSIFICATION OF TIME SPENT IN ACCESSING N-LIST
45
39.29
40
35
30 29.14
25
percent
20
15 13.71 13.43
10
4.43
5
0
1 hour 1 hours 2 hours More than 2 hours Not using N-LIST
time spent
It has been noted that the researchers are frequently use and access of N-List. The
Academic community spending their time to access N-List as shown in the above table.
96(13.71%) are access for 1 hour, 275(39.295) are 11/2 hours, 204 (29.14%) are 2 hours,
31(4.43%) are more than 2 hours 94 (13.43%) are not using N-List. Maximum respondents
are spending their time 11/2 hours.
70
TABLE: 5.60 CLASSIFICATION OF LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON N-LIST
PROJECT.

No
Level of Satisfaction Frequency Percentage Total (% )
5.1 Very satisfied 301 43
700 (100)
5.2 Satisfied 249 35.57
5.3 Not Satisfied 56 8
5.4 Dont know 94 13.43
CHART 5.60 CLASSIFICATION OF LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON N-LIST

PROJECT.
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION
13.43, 13%
8, 8% Very satisfied
43, 43% Satisfied
Not Satisfied
Dont know
35.57, 36%
71
7. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTED BY RESEARCHERS DURING ACCESS E-
RESOURCES AT N-LIST PROJECT
Any library especially academic libraries will have the privilege of experiencing some
facilitating factors and some obstructing factors. Knowing the week points and rectify the same
is equally important for effective management. Libraries were asked to identify and present
their problems in access N-List. The response are analyzed in the following table
TABLE: 5.61 CLASSIFICATION OF PROBLEMS ON N-LIST PROJECT.
Problems faced by while searching Percentage

No Frequency
N-LIST
1.1 211 30.14

Slow access speed
1.2 498 71.14

Insufficient nodes
1.3 Difficulty in finding relevant 71 10.14

information
1.4 110 15.71

Lack of ICT qualified staff
1.5 213 30.43

Lack of conducting awareness activities
Note: Respondents are permitted to multiple answers n=700
From the above table it shows that 211 (30.14%) respondents are stated slow access
speed, 498 (71.14%) are insufficient nodes, 71 (10.14%) are difficulty in finding relevant
72
information, 110 (15.71%) are lack of ICT qualified staff and 213 (30.43%) are lack of
conducting awareness activities.
CHART: 5.61 CLASSIFICATION OF PROBLEMS ON N-LIST PROJECT.
LACK OF CONDUCTING AWARENESS ACTIVITIES 30.43
LACK OF ICT QUALIFIED STAFF 15.71

PROBLEMS FACED
DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT INFORMATION 10.14
INSUFFICIENT NODES 71.14
SLOW ACCESS SPEED 30.14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PERCENT
Most of the libraries have stated that the problems are insufficient nodes i-e 71.14%
but nearly 30.14% have accepted that they had problems of lack of awareness activities. Thus
more number of nodes and frequent awareness activities should be conducted in the library.
8. ACCESS N-LIST IS A MUST AND RATE THE VALUE OF N-LIST
N-List provides E-resources at shared basis on all types E-book, E-journal and
bibliographic databases. For research purpose it is a must to access all those E-resources. To
make the access effective an opinion asked about the important value of using E-resources
particularly N-List.
Thus respondents given their opinion about N-List in the following table
73
TABLE: 5.62 CLASSIFICATION OF ACCESS N-LIST IS A MUST
Variable RESPONSE
Sl.
No
Total
Access N-LIST is a must Frequency Percentage
(% )
1.1 Strongly agree 251 35.9
1.2 Agree 306 43.7

700
(100)
1.3 Disagree 60 8.6
1.4 Strongly Disagree 34 4.9
1.5 Undecided 49 7
CHART: 5.62 CLASSIFICATION OF ACCESS N-LIST IS A MUST
50
45 43.7
40
35.9
35
30
PERCENT
25
20
15
10 8.6
7
4.9
5
0
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided
ACCESS IS A MUST
74
From the above table serial No. 1 the value 251 (35.9%) respondents are strongly
agreed to access is a must and 306 (43.7%) Agreed to access is a must and 60 (8.6%) are
disagree 34(4.9%) Strongly disagree and 49 (7%) Undecided. Lack of enthusiasm,
Unavailable subjects are the reasons for not agreed to access N-List.
TABLE: 5.63 CLASSIFICATION OF RATE THE VALUE OF N-LIST
PROJECT.
Variable Response
Sl.
No
Total (
Rate the Value of N-LIST Frequency Percentage
% )
2.1 Very much important 305 43.57
2.2 Important 156 22.29

700 (100)
2.3 Some What Important 145 20.71
2.4 Un important 62 8.86
2.5 Very much unimportant 32 4.57
Serial No. 2 reveals that 305 (43.57%) are very much important 156 (22.29%)
are important, 145 (20.71%) are somewhat important 62 (8.86%) are unimportant and 32
(4.57 %) are very much unimportant It shows that the value on N-LIST given by the
researchers is very high of importance.
75
CHART: 5.63 CLASSIFICATION OF RATE THE VALUE OF N-LIST PROJECT.
43.57
PERCENT
22.29
20.71
8.86
4.57
Very much Some What Very much

Important Un important
important Important unimportant
Series 1 43.57 22.29 20.71 8.86 4.57
RATE THE IMPORTANCE
TABLE: 5.64 CLASSIFICATION OF ACCESS N-LIST IS A MUST AND RATE THE

VALUE OF N-LIST PROJECT.
Rank
Description
No Score average
1 2 3 4 5
2.1 Very much 305 251

60 49 35 2892 4.13 3
important
2.2 Important 306 166 112 98 18 2999 4.28 1
2.3 Some What 245 185 95 93 82 2931 4.18 2

Important
2.4 Un important 205 165 145 100 85 2816 4.02 5
2.5 Very much 195 186 144 96 79 2850 4.07 4

unimportant
76
9. OPINIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ABOUT N-LIST
TABLE: 5.65 CLASSIFICATION OF RATING THE OPINION ON ACCESS N-LIST

PROJECT
Variable Response
Sl.
No
Opinion about E-resources at N- Total
LIST (% )
1.1 Excellent 299 42.71
1.2 Good 201 28.71

700
(99.99)
1.3 Fair 63 9
1.4 Satisfied 43 6.14
1.5 Dont know 94 13.43
CHART: 5.65 CLASSIFICATION OF RATING THE OPINION ON ACCESS N-LIST

PROJECT
77
OPINON
13.43
6.14 Excellent
42.71 Good
9 Fair
Satisfied
Dont know
28.71
TABLE: 5.66 RENEWAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR FURURE USERS
Variable Response
Sl.
No Recommend renewal
Total (
subscription for future Frequency Percentage
% )
researchers
2.1 Yes 606 86.57
700 (100)
2.2 No - -
2.3 Dont know 94 13.43
CHART: 5.66 RENEWAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR FURURE USERS
78
RENEWAL
13.43, 13%
0, 0%
Yes
No
Dont know
86.57, 87%
10. Attitude of researchers towards E-Resources.
H0 There is no mean difference between gender of the respondents and their level of attitude
towards e-resources.
TABLE 5.30
Mean difference between gender of the respondents and their level of attitude
towards E-resources
Male Female
Std.
Deviatio Std. Sig. (2-
STATEMENTS Mean n Mean Deviation t tailed)
Computer knowledge is must
to access E-resource 3.8750 .83452 3.7778 .22222 0.267 .793Ns
It provides quick service to
the users. 4.0000 .92582 4.0000 .28868 0.000 1.000 Ns
Users can search on their
own convenience 3.3500 1.03510 3.7333 .28868 4.904 .008*
To satisfy the information
*
needs with E-resources 3.0250 .51755 3.6000 .28868 5.775 .006
Advisable to have a
networking library 4.5000 .75593 4.1111 .20031 1.181 .256 Ns
New technology in the library
make research more
*
accuracy 3.5750 .74402 4.3556 .29397 2.055 .048
Overall E-resources is very
*
helpful in my research 3.6500 .88641 3.9889 .20031 3.382 .013
79
Source: Computed Data
Note:
* denotes significant level at 5%
NS denotes not significant.
It is evident from the table, * since p value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis
is rejected at 5% level with regard to level of attitude towards E resources of Users
can search on their own convenience, To satisfy the information needs with E-
resources, New technology in the library make research more accuracy and Overall
E-resources is very helpful in my research. Hence there is significant mean difference
between gender of the respondents with regard to their level of attitude towards E
resources of Users can search on their own convenience, To satisfy the information
needs with E-resources , New technology in the library make research more accuracy
and Overall E-resources is very helpful in my research. These all variables mean
scores of Female respondents and Male respondents reveal that Female respondents are
having high level of attitude towards E-resources than male respondents.

NS
Since p value is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted. Hence there
is no significant mean difference between gender of the respondents with regard to their
level of attitude towards E-resources of Computer knowledge is must to access E-
resource , It provides quick service to the users and Advisable to have a
networking library.
H0 There is no mean difference between age group of the respondents and their level of
attitude towards e-resources.
TABLE 5.31
Mean difference between age group of the respondents and their level of attitude
towards E-resources
Below 25 25 - 35 36 Years and
STATEMENT F Sig.
Years Years above
80
Computer knowledge is must to *
3.5000a 4.0000 b 3.9333 b 3.381 .023
access E-resource
It provides quick service to the *
3.2000 a 4.1667 b 4.4667 b 4.660 .037
users.
Users can search on their own
3.5000 3.5333 3.5667 0.186 .832 Ns
convenience
To satisfy the information needs *
2.8333 a 3.5000 b 3.6000 b 3.855 .033
with E-resources
Advisable to have a networking *
3.6000 a 4.6667 b 4.5000 b 6.068 .013
library
3.8000 3.9667 3.867 .446 .649 Ns
make research more accuracy
3.7000 3.9000 3.8333 .381 .690 Ns
helpful in my research
Note: * denotes significant level at 5%

is rejected at 5% level with regard to level of attitude towards E resources of
Computer knowledge is must to access E-resource, It provides quick service to the
users , To satisfy the information needs with E-resources and Advisable to have a
networking library.
Hence there is significant mean difference between age group of the respondents
with regard to their level of attitude towards E resources of Computer knowledge is
must to access E-resource, It provides quick service to the users , To satisfy the
information needs with E-resources and Advisable to have a networking library.
Based on Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT), the three level of age group of
respondents are classified into two subsets. Subset 1 is below 25 years . Subset 2 is
25 35 years and 36 years and above. The mean scores of 25 35 years and 36 years
& above age group respondents are higher than the mean score of below 25 years age
group respondents. Hence it can be concluded that 25 35 years and 36 years & above
81
age group respondents are having high level of attitude towards E-resources of
users , To satisfy the information needs with E-resources and Advisable to have a
networking library than below 25 years age group respondents.

NS
level of attitude towards E-resources of Users can search on their own convenience ,
New technology in the library make research more accuracy and Overall E-
resources is very helpful in my research.
H0 There is no mean difference between living area of the respondents and their level of
attitude towards e-resources.
TABLE 5.32
Mean difference between living area of the respondents and their level of attitude
towards E-resources
STATEMENT Rural Urban Semi-urban F Sig.

*
to access E-resource 3.8000 a 4.4286 b 3.4000 a 4.376 .014
It provides quick service to
*
the users. 3.4000 a 4.7143 b 3.5000 a 5.903 .002
Users can search on their
*
own convenience 3.2000 a 4.1429 b 3.4000 a 4.178 .045
needs with E-resources 3.2000 a 3.4857 b 3.2000 a 2.075 .078 Ns
Advisable to have a
*
networking library 4.1000 a 4.5714 b 4.1000 a 5.224 .005
make research more
accuracy 4.0000 a 3.9143 b 4.0000 a 0.408 .673 Ns
helpful in my research 3.8000 a 3.8714 b 3.9000 a 1.107 .358 Ns

82
users , Users can search on their own convenience and Advisable to have a
networking library.
Hence there is significant mean difference between living area of the respondents
with regard to their level of attitude towards E resources of Computer knowledge is
must to access E-resource, It provides quick service to the users , Users can search
on their own convenience and Advisable to have a networking library.
Based on Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT), the three levels of living area
of respondents are classified into two subsets. Subset 1 is Urban. Subset 2 is Rural
and Semi-urban. The mean scores of Urban respondents are higher than the mean score
of Rural and Semi-urban respondents. Hence it can be concluded that Urban
respondents are having high level of attitude towards E-resources of Computer
knowledge is must to access E-resource, It provides quick service to the users ,
Users can search on their own convenience and Advisable to have a networking
library than Rural and Semi-urban respondents.

NS
is no significant mean difference between living area of the respondents with regard to
their level of attitude towards E-resources of To satisfy the information needs with E-
resources , New technology in the library make research more accuracy and
Overall E-resources is very helpful in my research.
83
H0 There is no mean difference between qualification discipline of the respondents and
their level of attitude towards e-resources.
TABLE 5.33
Mean difference between qualification discipline of the respondents and their level of attitude
towards E-resources
science Non- Science
Std.
STATEMENTS Mean Deviation Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed)
Computer knowledge is
must to access E-
*
resource 4.2500 .25000 3.4444 .52705 3.684 .017
It provides quick service
to the users. 4.2500 .25000 3.7778 .97183 2.132 .475 Ns
Users can search on
their own convenience 3.5000 .37796 3.5556 0.88192 .117 .908 Ns
To satisfy the
information needs with
E-resources 3.3000 .26726 3.3111 .78174 1.040 .315 Ns
Advisable to have a
*
networking library 4.3250 .18298 4.3000 .70711 -2.255 .048
New technology in the
library make research
more accuracy 3.9250 .29505 3.8778 .97183 -0.785 .445 Ns
Overall E-resources is
very helpful in my
*
research 4.0000 .32733 3.6667 .50000 2.939 .036

Note:
Computer knowledge is must to access, To satisfy the information needs with E-
resources, Advisable to have a networking library and Overall E-resources is very
helpful in my research.
Hence there is significant mean difference between qualification discipline of
the respondents with regard to their level of attitude towards E resources of Users
can search on their own convenience, Advisable to have a networking library and
Overall E-resources is very helpful in my research. These all variables mean scores
84
of Female respondents and Male respondents reveal that Female respondents are having
high level of attitude towards E-resources than male respondents.

NS
is no significant mean difference between qualification discipline of the respondents
with regard to their level of attitude towards E-resources of Users can search on their
own convenience, It provides quick service to the users, To satisfy the information
needs with E-resources and New technology in the library make research more
accuracy.
H0 There is no mean difference between mode of study of the respondents and their level
of attitude towards e-resources.
TABLE 5.34
Mean difference between mode of study of the respondents and their level of attitude
towards E-resources
Mphil Ph.D - Part Ph.D -
STATEMENT Regular Time Regular F Sig.
*
to access E-resource 3.4000 a 4.0320 b 4.0103 b 4.235 .042
It provides quick service to the
users. 4.1214 4.0429 3.9030 .206 .816 Ns
Users can search on their own
convenience 3.6387 3.5429 3.6025 1.265 .313 Ns
needs with E-resources 3.3863 3.3286 3.2021 0.483 .627 Ns
Advisable to have a networking
*
library 3.3022 a 4.7143 b 4.4281 b 3.981 .045
make research more accuracy 4.0192 3.9571 3.9102 .272 .766 Ns
*
helpful in my research 3.3129 a 3.9571 b 4.2952 b 4.647 .028

85
Computer knowledge is must to access E-resource, It Advisable to have a
networking library and Overall E-resources is very helpful in my research.
Hence there is significant mean difference between study mode of the
respondents with regard to their level of attitude towards E resources of Computer
knowledge is must to access E-resource, It Advisable to have a networking library
and Overall E-resources is very helpful in my research.
Based on Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT), the three levels of living area
of respondents are classified into two subsets. Subset 1 is MPhil regular. Subset 2 is
PhD part time & Full time. The mean scores of PhD part time & Full time respondents
are higher than the mean score of MPhil regular respondents. Hence it can be concluded
that PhD part time & Full time respondents are having high level of attitude towards
E-resources of Computer knowledge is must to access E-resource, It Advisable to
have a networking library and Overall E-resources is very helpful in my research.
than Mphil regular respondents.

NS
is no significant mean difference between study mode of the respondents with regard to
their level of attitude towards E-resources of It provides quick service to the users ,
Users can search on their own convenience , To satisfy the information needs with
E-resources and New technology in the library make research more accuracy
11. Conclusion:
86
From the above analysis, it seems conclusive that the academic community prefers the
E-resources access at N-List. It shows a favorable attitude towards E-resources through N-List.
The role played by library professionals in information processing using Electronic resources
at N-List is not up to the mark as perceived by the academic community.
5.1.3 PART III
CREATING AWARENESS ON N-LIST AMONG THE RESEARCHERS OF
UNAVAILABLE MEMBERSHIP COLLEGES, AN OPINION SURVEY.
DISCUSSION ABOUT UNAVAILABLE N-LIST MEMBERSHIP
In the previous part the personal characteristics, institution details and various types
electronic resources its use, opinion among researchers, about print and electronic resources
analyzed. This is followed by the importance of consortium subscription, e-resources access
through N-LIST project and its satisfaction, use, preference are analyzed.
87
The modern day libraries are getting trouble the cost of the publications are growing
day by day. This has necessitated and depends on the consortium membership among colleges
to strengthen their existing resources. Thus the investigator aim to create awareness through
various activities like demonstration on N-LIST among the researchers for those who are not
using consortium resources of N-LIST. The following table depicts in percentage of category
and discipline of researchers and their use and access status.
TABLE : 5.35 % OF CATEGORY AND MODE OF STUDY OF THE RESEARCHERS
AND THEIR USE AND ACCESS STATUS.
Free use only Access through

Visit other
Subject online e- printed Internet and
libraries
resources materials others
SCIENCE 68 (22.67) 24(8) - 48(16)
NON- 57(19) 13(39) 34(11.33) 30(10)
SCIENCE
TOTAL n=300
REGULAR 87(29) 22(7.33) 34(11.33) 66(22)
PART-TIME 36(12) 9(3) 3(1) 43(14.33)
88
TOTAL n=300
While analyzing the above Table No 5.30 reveals that 22.67 % are in Science subject and they
are using Free online e-resources and 19 % of the respondents are in Non science category
using free on line e-resources, 8 % of the respondents are in Science visiting other libraries to
access e-resources and 39 % of the Non- Science category researchers are visiting other
libraries, All the science subject research scholars are using e-resources whereas 11.33 % of
them are use only printed materials, 16 % of the respondents in science Category access through
internet and others and 10 % in Non-science group are access through internet and others.
It has been noted that more percentage of the research scholars from non science were
using only printed materials and visiting other libraries and more percentage from science were
free online e-resources and access through internet and others.
The researchers who are doing research through regular stream using free on line e-
resources were 29 % and part time stream were 12 % , 7.33 % of the research scholars in regular
were visiting other libraries whereas 3 % of them were part time, 11.33 % of the respondents
were in regular use printed materials and 1 % of part time scholars, 22 % of the researchers
were access through internet and others from regular research scholars and 33 % of them are
part time researchers.
From the above description those who are doing research through regular stream were
in highest percentage compared with of part time researchers.
TABLE 5.36 : OPINION OF RESEARCHERS
89
No of Willing to access
Willing to access Objection
Discipline Researchers N-LIST
N-LIST (Gladly) given
interviewed (Conditionally)
Tamil 44 - 10 34
English 63 63 - -
Malayalam 6 - - 6
Mathematics 37 37 - -
Physics 18 18 - -
Chemistry 21 20 1 -
Botany 24 22 2 -
Zoology 27 26 1 -
Bio-technology 11 10 1 -
Micro-biology 2 1 1 -
Economics 19 19 - -
History 28 25 3 -
Total 300 (241) (19) (40)
n=300
H0 There is no mean difference between gender of the respondents and their perception on
problems in using N- List source.
90
TABLE 5.37
Mean difference between gender of the respondents and their perception on problems in
using N- List source.
Male Female
Std. Std.
STATEMENTS Mean Deviation Mean Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed)
Slow access speed 2.0250 .83452 1.8778 .22222 0.953 .356 Ns

Insufficient information 1.5000 .75593 1.5556 .24216 0.154 .879 Ns
Difficulty in finding
*
relevant information 4.3250 .83452 3.6889 .20031 3.675 .010
*
Lack of ICT knowledge 4.1250 .64087 3.7778 .27778 2.953 .035
Note:
is rejected at 5% level with regard to their perception on problems in using N- List
source such as Difficulty in finding relevant information and Lack of ICT
knowledge.
Hence there is significant mean difference between gender of the respondents
with regard to their perception on problems in using N- List source such as Difficulty
in finding relevant information and Lack of ICT knowledge. These variables mean
scores of Female respondents and Male respondents reveal that Male respondents are
facing more problems in using N-List Sources than Female respondents.

NS
perception on problems in using N- List source such as Slow access speed and
Insufficient information.
91
H0 There is no mean difference between age group of the respondents and their perception
on problems in using N- List source.
TABLE 5.38
mean difference between age group of the respondents and their perception on problems in

STATEMENT Years Years above F Sig.
Slow access speed 1.2000 2.0000 1.9667 .791 .473 Ns
Insufficient information 1.6000 1.5000 1.5333 .552 .588 Ns
*
relevant information 4.4000a 3.8000b 3.8667b 3.571 .042
Lack of ICT knowledge 4.1000 3.8333 3.8667 0.392 .683 Ns

source such as Difficulty in finding relevant information .
with regard their perception on problems in using N- List source such as Difficulty in
finding relevant information.
respondents are classified into two subsets. Subset 1 is below 25 years . Subset 2 is
25 35 years and 36 years and above. The mean scores of 25 35 years and 36 years
& above age group respondents are lower than the mean score of below 25 years age
group respondents. Hence it can be concluded that below 25 years age group
respondents are facing higher problem in using N-List Sources of Difficulty in finding
relevant information than 25 35 years and 36 years & above group respondents.
92
NS
perception on problems in using N- List source such as Slow access speed, Lack of
ICT knowledge and Insufficient information.
H0 There is no mean difference between living area of the respondents and their perception
on problems in using N- List source.
TABLE 5.39
mean difference between living area of the respondents and their perception on problems in

Slow access speed 1.9000 2.0029 1.9000 .401 .677 Ns
Insufficient information 1.5000 1.5714 1.5000 3.088 .077 Ns
*
Difficulty in finding relevant information 4.1000a 3.8429b 4.010 a 3.713 .046
*
Lack of ICT knowledge 4.00000 a 3.6143b 4.3000 a 4.425 .023

knowledge.
with regard their perception on problems in using N- List source such as Difficulty in
finding relevant information and Lack of ICT knowledge.
respondents are classified into two subsets. Subset 1 is Rural and Semi-urban. Subset
93
2 is Urban. The mean scores of Rural and Semi-urban area respondents is greater than
the mean score of urban area respondents. Hence it can be concluded that rural and
Semi-urban area respondents are having more problems in using N- List source such
as Difficulty in finding relevant information and Lack of ICT knowledge than the
mean score of urban area respondents.

NS
is no significant mean difference between area of the respondents with regard to their
perception on problems in using N- List source such as Slow access speed and
H0 There is no mean difference between qualification discipline of the respondents and

their perception on problems in using N- List source.
TABLE 5.40
Mean difference between qualification discipline of the respondents and their perception on
problems in using N- List source.
Science Non-science
Std. Std. Sig. (2-
STATEMENTS Mean Deviation Mean Deviation t tailed)

Insufficient information 1.5778 .66667 1.5500 .25000 1.584 0.134 Ns
*
relevant information 3.7111a 0.7817 4.1750b .22658 2.675 .014
*
Lack of ICT knowledge 3.5556 a .72648 4.3750 b .18298 2.645 .018

Note:
94
knowledge.
with regard to their perception on problems in using N- List source such as Difficulty
in finding relevant information and Lack of ICT knowledge. These variables mean
scores of Non-science respondents and Science respondents reveal that Non-science
respondents are facing more problems in using N-List Sources than Science
respondents.
NS
is no significant mean difference between qualification discipline of the respondents with
regard to their perception on problems in using N- List source such as Slow access
speed and Insufficient information.
H0 There is no mean difference between designation of the respondents and their

perception on problems in using N- List source.
TABLE 5.41
Mean difference between designation of the respondents and their perception on problems in
Research Scholar cum

Research Scholar Faculty
Std. Std. Sig. (2-

Insufficient information 1.6250 .91613 1.4444 .17568 0.506 .620 Ns
*
relevant information 4.1250 a .64087 3.8889 b .26058 2.175 .040
*
Lack of ICT knowledge 4.3750 a .74402 3.5556 b .17568 2.645 .018

Note:
95
knowledge.
Hence there is significant mean difference between designation of the
respondents with regard to their perception on problems in using N- List source such as
Difficulty in finding relevant information and Lack of ICT knowledge. These
variables mean scores of Research Scholar and Research Scholar cum Faculty
respondents reveal that Research Scholar respondents are facing more problems in using
N-List Sources than Research Scholar cum Faculty respondents.

NS
is no significant mean difference between designation of the respondents with regard to
their perception on problems in using N- List source such as Slow access speed and
H0 There is no mean difference between study mode of the respondents and their
perception on problems in using N- List source.
TABLE 5.42
Mean difference between study mode of the respondents and their perception on problems in
STATEMENT Mphil Regular Ph.D - Part Time Ph.D - Regular F Sig.

Slow access speed 1.8121 2.0429 1.909 2.871 .112 Ns
Insufficient information 1.6332 1.5429 1.6654 2.517 .136 Ns
*
relevant information 4.6562 3.8571 3.6644 3.752 .043
*
Lack of ICT knowledge 4.0267 3.8429 3.8122 3.768 .041
96

knowledge.
Hence there is significant mean difference between study mode of the
respondents with regard to their perception on problems in using N- List source such as
Difficulty in finding relevant information and Lack of ICT knowledge.
Based on Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT), the three level of study mode
of respondents are classified into two subsets. Subset 1 is PhD part-time. Subset 2 is
PhD Regular and M.Phil Regular . The mean scores of PhD Regular and M.Phil
Regular respondents are lower than the mean score of PhD part-time respondents.
Hence it can be concluded that PhD part-time respondents are facing higher problem in
using N-List Sources of Difficulty in finding relevant information and Lack of ICT
knowledge than PhD Regular and M.Phil Regular respondents.

NS
is no significant mean difference between study mode of the respondents with regard to
their to their perception on problems in using N- List source such as Slow access
speed, and Insufficient information.
97
H0 There is no mean difference between gender of the respondents and their level of
satisfaction towards using N- List source.
TABLE 5.43
Mean difference between gender of the respondents and their level of satisfaction towards
Male Female
Std. Std. Sig. (2-
*
Easy accessibility 3.4444a .83452 4.1250b .17568 2.336 .048
*
flexibility in searching options 3.1250 a .35355 3.7778b .14699 3.337 0.005
Journals availability 4.0000 0.70711 3.8556 .17568 21314 .065 Ns
Information retrieved from N-
List source 3.6250 1.06066 3.5556 .37680 .130 .898 Ns
Library staff supports to access
E-resources 2.3500 .88641 2.4556 .88192 -.711 .488 Ns

Note:
is rejected at 5% level with regard to level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such
as Easy accessibility and flexibility in searching options.
with regard to their level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as Easy
accessibility and flexibility in searching options. These variables mean scores of
Female respondents and Male respondents reveal that female respondents are facing
more problems in using N-List Sources than Female respondents.

NS
level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as Journals availability,
98
Information retrieved from N-List source and Library staff supports to access E-
resources.
H0 There is no mean difference between different age group of the respondents and their
level of satisfaction towards using N- List source.
TABLE 5.44
Mean difference between different age group of the respondents and their level of satisfaction
towards using N- List source.

STATEMENT Years Years above F Sig.
Easy accessibility 3.8000 3.6667 3.8333 .072 .931 Ns
flexibility in searching options 3.5000 3.4333 3.5000 .351 .710 Ns
Journals availability 4.0000 3.8667 3.9000 .412 .670 Ns
List source 3.6000 3.7333 3.5000 1.550 .247 Ns
Library staff supports to
access E-resources 2.3000 2.1667 2.3118 .462 .639 Ns

NS
is no significant mean difference between age of the respondents with regard to their
level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as Easy accessibility ,
flexibility in searching options, Journals availability, Information retrieved from
N-List source and Library staff supports to access E-resources.
H0 There is no mean difference between living area of the respondents and their level of
TABLE 5.45
Mean difference between living area of the respondents and their level of satisfaction towards
99
*
Easy accessibility 3.6000a 4.1429b 3.4000 a 4.738 .012
flexibility in searching options 3.4000 3.4286 3.6000 .206 .816 Ns
List source 3.8000 3.2857 3.8000 0.448 .648 Ns
Library staff supports to access
E-resources 2.8000 2.1429 2.4118 .813 .464 Ns

as Easy accessibility.
Hence there is significant mean difference between area of the respondents with
regard to their level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as Easy
accessibility.
Based on Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT), the three level of area of
respondents are classified into two subsets. Subset 1 is rural and semi-urban. Subset
2 is Urban. The rural and semi-urban area respondents are lower than the mean score
of urban area respondents. Hence it can be concluded that urban respondents are more
satisfied in Easy accessibility of N- List source than rural and semi-urban area
respondents.
NS
100
level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as flexibility in searching
options, Journals availability, Information retrieved from N-List source and
Library staff supports to access E-resources.
H0 There is no mean difference between education discipline of the respondents and their
level of satisfaction towards using N- List source.
TABLE 5.46
Mean difference between education discipline of the respondents and their level of
Science Non-science
Std.
Deviatio Std. Sig. (2-
STATEMENTS Mean n Mean Deviation t tailed)
Easy accessibility 3.6667 .70711 3.8750 .29505 0.557 .585 Ns

flexibility in searching options 3.6667 .50000 3.2500 .16366 1.775 0.096 Ns
*
Journals availability 4.2778 0.66667 3.5000 .26726 2.644 .029
List source 3.6667 .70711 3.5000 .50000 .313 .759 Ns
access E-resources 2.3333 1.00000 2.5000 .75593 0.383 .707 Ns
Note:
as Journals availability.
Hence there is significant mean difference between education disciplines of the
respondents with regard to their level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as
Journals availability. These variables mean scores of science group respondents and
Non-science group respondents reveal that science group respondents are more satisfied
than non-science group respondents.
101
NS
level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as Easy accessibility ,
flexibility in searching options, Information retrieved from N-List source and
H0 There is no mean difference between designation of the respondents and their level of
TABLE 5.47
Mean difference between designation of the respondents and their level of satisfaction
Research Scholar &

Research Scholar Faculty
Std. Std. Sig. (2-
*
Easy accessibility 3.4444 .83452 4.1250 .17568 2.536 .020
flexibility in searching
*
options 3.1250 .35355 3.7778 .14699 3.337 0.005
*
Journals availability 4.3750 0.51755 3.4444 .17568 3.664 .002
Information retrieved from
N-List source 3.5000 1.19523 3.6667 .33333 .313 .759 Ns
*
access E-resources 2.1500 .88641 2.7111 .78174 2.380 .035

Note:
102
as Easy accessibility , flexibility in searching options, Journals availability, and
Hence there is significant mean difference between designations of the
respondents with regard to their level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such
as Easy accessibility, flexibility in searching options, Journals availability and
Library staff supports to access E-resources.. These variables mean scores of
research scholars cum faculty respondents and research scholar respondents reveal that
research scholars cum faculty respondents are more satisfied towards using N- List source
than research scholar group respondents.

NS
is no significant mean difference between a designation of the respondents with regard
to their level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as Information retrieved
from N-List source.
H0 There is no mean difference between study mode of the respondents and their level of
TABLE 5.48
mean difference between study mode of the respondents and their level of satisfaction
Mphil Ph.D - Ph.D -

STATEMENT Regular Part Time Regular F Sig.
*
Easy accessibility 3.4230a 3.5143 a 4.3120 b 4.536 .024
flexibility in searching
options 3.4837 3.4286 3.6540 .206 .816 Ns
Information retrieved from
N-List source 3.6173 3.6286 3.6640 0.159 .854 Ns
*
access E-resources 2.1022 a 2.0120 a 2.5118b 4.161 .038
103

is rejected at 5% level with regard to their level of satisfaction towards using N- List
source such as Easy accessibility and Library staff supports to access E-resources.
Hence there is significant mean difference between study modes of the
respondents with regard to their level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such
as Easy accessibility and Library staff supports to access E-resources.
Based on Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT), the three level of study mode
of respondents are classified into two subsets. Subset 1 is Mphil Regular and PhD Part-
Time . Subset 2 is PhD Regular. The mean scores of Mphil Regular and PhD Part-
Time respondents are lower than the mean score of PhD Regular respondents. Hence it
can be concluded that phd regular respondents are more satisfied in using N- List source
such as Easy accessibility and Library staff supports to access E-resources than
Mphil Regular and PhD Part-Time respondents.

NS
is no significant mean difference between study mode of the respondents with regard
to their level of satisfaction towards using N- List source such as flexibility in
searching options, Journals availability and Information retrieved from N-List
source
GOALS OF CONDUCTING AWARENESS ACTIVITIES ON N-LIST
MEMBERSHIP UNAVAILABLE COLLEGES
104
1 To inculcate the need of N-LIST subscription.
2 To explain What is Consortia and its membership benefits of accessing e-
resources particularly N-LIST Project.
3. Suggest the N-LIST subscription to the higher authorities.
4. To know access e-journals from N-LIST can satisfy the needs of researchers
5. To impart the significance of accessing N-LIST sources.
A COMPARATION OF N-LIST MEMBERSHIP AVAILABLE AND UNAVAILABLE
AMONG COLLEGES
The shift from traditional method of access of information to new ways of access
consortium membership is not merely a technological evolution, but requires a change in the
paradigm by which users access and interact with information. By introducing membership
through N-LIST provide better delivery of information than in the traditional system. The
membership on N-LIST changed the ways in which researchers can use and quick access. From
the respondents point of view through interview(both positive and negative opinion on N-LIST
are summarized in the following table
Conclusion :
From this analysis, it seems conclusive that the academic prefers the traditional
hardcopy publications to the use of electronic databases. Among the electronic resources they
prefer resources available in INTERNET to CD ROM databases. The academic community
shows a favourable attitude towards e-resources. The role played by library professional in the
105
information retrieval process using electronic resources is not up to the mark as perceived by
the academic community.
Part 11
106

User Pattern Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

User Pattern Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER -5

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

membership available (data collected through questionnaires) and unavailable N-LIST

with original or new hypothesis should be subjected to statistical test of significance to

membership colleges. Thus this chapter is divided into three parts.

and access of e-resources, constraints and opinion of e-resources are analyzed.

style of functioning technology, the style of functioning is augmented informs of Researchers

presented in the tables given below.

have been shown in the tables.

Table 5.1 Gender wise classification

1.1 Male 154 22

Source: Primary Data

Table 5.2 Age wise classification

2.1 Below 25 301 43

2.2 25-29 211 30

2.3 30-34 145 21

2.5 40 and above 10 1

Source: Primary Data

Table 5.3 Marital Status wise classification

3.1 Married 278 40 700

3.2 Unmarried 422 60 (100)

Source: Primary Data

Table 5.4 Location wise classification

4.1 Urban 197 28.14

4.2 Semi Urban 210 30 700 (100)

4.3 Rural 293 41.86

Source: Primary Data

the highest living of researchers.

Table 5.5 Qualification wise classification

5.1 M.Sc 305 43.57

5.2 M.A 263 37.58

5.3 M.Com 108 15.43

5.5 M.P.Ed 1 .14

5.6 MHRD 8 1.14

5.7 MBA 2 .29

5.8 MCA 5 .71

Source: Primary Data

Educational qualification is one of the important to adopt new techniques in modern

Table 5.6 Category wise classification

6.1 Science 310 44.29

Source: Primary Data

Science and it is the highest number for this study.

Table 5.7 Department / Subject wise classification

7.1 Tamil 94 13.43

7.2 English 74 10.57

7.3 Maths 40 5.71

7.4 Physics 79 11.29

7.5 Chemistry 62 8.86

7.6 Zoology 71 10.14 700 (100)

7.8 Bio Technology 2 .29

7.9 Micro Biology 3 .43

7.10 Bio chemistry 1 .14

7.11 Computer Science 15 2.14

7.13 Library & Information Science 8 1.14

7.14 Physical Education 1 .14

7.15 History 47 6.71

7.16 Economics 48 6.86

7.17 Commerce 108 15.43

7.18 Human Resource Development 8 1.14

7.19 Business Administration 2 .29

Source: Primary Data

Chart 5.7 Department / Subject wise classification

Nutrition & Dietetics