By Adepoju SO; Akinola JO; Oyewumi OO; Adegun IA; Salami OK (2021). Greener Journal of Library, Information and Archival Sciences, 2(1): 1-13.
Return to Issue
Full text – PDF
Full text – EPUB
18,187 total views, 3 views today
Vol. 2(1), pp. 1-13, 2021
ISSN: 2672-4472
Copyright ©2021, the copyright of this article is retained by the author(s)
https://gjournals.org/GJLIAS
1,2,3,4,5 Olusegun Oke Library, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Oyo State, Nigeria.
Author’s Emails: 1soadepoju@ lautech. edu.ng; 2gbengakinola@ yahoo. com/joakinola@ lautech.edu. ng; 3oooyewumi@ lautech.edu.ng; 4aiadegun@ lautech.edu. ng; 5kosalami@ lautech.edu. ng
Type: Research
Full text: HTML, EPUB
Published: 11/12/2021
Akinola John O.
E-mail gbengakinola@ yahoo.com,
oooyewumi @ lautech.edu.ng,
aiadegun @ lautech.edu.ng,
kosalami @ lautech.edu.ng,
,
INTRODUCTION
Research Institute libraries are special attached to training and government institutions. The library complements the research institute activities of the institute by providing current literature and database relevant to the information needs of the researchers. It is the knowledge base of the research carried out in the institute. The mission of theses libraries are to develop a comprehensive collection by acquiring books, journals and non-print materials like CD ROMS and other databases relevant to the research mandates of the institutes, Reitz J.M. (2019). Research Libraries are service organizations charged with the responsibility of providing a collection of materials sufficiently comprehensive to support specialized research in a specific field, an academic discipline or group of disciplines including primary and secondary sources, selected to meet the information needs of serious researches.
The primary emphasis in research libraries is on the accumulation of materials and the provision of access services to scholars qualified to make use of them. The research libraries are usually attached to one type of organization or the other such as research institutes, government ministries, banks and professional bodies. Ajibero (2011) stated that the establishment of these libraries often arose from the perceived need of the management of the organization. This need is brought to the attention of the management of the organization by scientists or researchers who through experience have recognized the value of timely and effective library services. So it is the users who are responsible for the establishment of research libraries. According to Beenham (2014) the chief aim of the research library can be expressed as “to save the parent organization both time and money”. The general objectives can be summarized as follows: To provide comprehensive and balanced information resources relevant to the activities of the parent organization, to produce and disseminate current awareness services based on the profile of individual users, to provide required information quickly and precisely, to conduct retrospective literature search for users as appropriate, Augello (2014). The importance of the research libraries can best be captured in the “Modern Society” concept, Bavakutty and Abdul Majeed (2015). The Modern Society is known as information society. The society has recognized that information is most valuable to the success in any field. Information is treated as an economic commodity and the society treat it as the prime mover’ of the society, Investment in information generation and dissemination are becoming an engine of economic growth. Production, distribution and consumption of information have increased enormously. Information is now an international public good and its benefits extends to all those who can access it irrespective of geographical boundaries and time. It is said that investment in information generation gives much higher returns than in the production of industrial goods. Information generation is mainly brought by institutions of higher education’ and research through research and development activities. The research libraries, therefore helps to generate more information by disseminating it. Despite, the foregoing benefits of the research library to information age and the society at large, today the libraries are facing two major threats: a global digital environment and increasing competition. They must improve the quality of their services in order to survive, Cullen (2015).
Statement of the Problem
As a result of rapid technological innovation users’ needs of information as well as their expectations regarding library service quality have increased manifold. Librarians and information professionals now have to perform not only traditional library services such as acquisition, cataloging, classification and organization of collection, but to offer “value-added services” to satisfy users. So, present day libraries are/more aware of the fact that their existence depends on the satisfaction of users. Therefore, libraries are now more concerned about the library customers, their satisfaction, and the quality of library and information products and services, and their marketing. It is important for research libraries to know how well they are performing by getting feedback from users because it is the factor to succeed in service performance and ultimately fulfilling the parent body’s mandate.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To assess the users’ expectation for quality service from- the research institute library system.
2. To determine the users satisfaction in relation to service perception in the research institute libraries.
3. To assess the service quality of the research libraries by measuring the gap between perceptions arid expectations of users;
4. To determine the users attitudes to quality service in the research institute library.
Research Questions
The research study seeks to answer the following questions;
1. What are the users’ expectations of the Research Library services?
2. What are the perceptions of users regarding the quality of the Research Institute library service?
3. What are the gaps between user expectations and user perceptions?
4. What are the users’ attitudes towards the service they receive?
Hypothesis
1. There is no significant relationship, between users’ expectations and perception of quality service in the research institute libraries.
2. There is no significant relationship between users’ attitude and the perception of quality service in the research institutes libraries.
Literature Review
User’s expectations have increased as a result of rapid development of advanced information technology, increasing generation of new knowledge and information availability from both printed as well online media. DeSaez (2008) mentioned that there is greater need to satisfy customer’s wants and expectations. Customer care particularly got importance in business and retailing organizations due to social and economic changes in the last 40 years. Efforts should be made to know-what^ are customer’s wants, when they want services, and how they want services. Assessment of libraries service quality is a first step for exploring customer’s perceptions and expectations of a total quality management programme. Improvement of services and application of quality principles is the next step. However, customer is paramount in defining quality of services. Parasuraman, Zeithmal & Berry (1985) also asserted the fact that “quality is based solely on user’s perceptions and all other judgments are irrelevant1′. Sey et al (1996), found that “quality comes from the people who have used the service and not the service provider; hence the information about quality of services in libraries is of subjective nature”. Parasuraman, Zeithrnal and Berry (1985) mentioned that service quality perceptions result from comparison of customer’s expectations against perceptions. Perceptions are reality which presents actual situation of organization’s services but may be influenced due to internal and external factors. Hernon and Altman (2008) found that” ‘Perceptions’ are the impressions formed when an individual encounters with the library”. Perceptions are not static, they may change depending on user’s experience moving up with positive experience and down, with negative experience. The factors that form user’s perceptions were investigated by Lilly & Usherwood (2018), they found that “user’s experience, past experience, language and present motivational state or goals for the future influence our perception of the present. Past learning has a significant influence on our perception”. On the other hand literature on service quality shows that ‘expectations’ are pre-trial beliefs before experiencing a particular service. Popoola (2002) stated that “customer’s expectations are based on such factors such as personal service philosophy, customer’s personal needs, implicit service promises, word- of- mouth communication and customer’s past experience”.
Today libraries particularly research libraries have a dire need, to assess user’s perceptions and expectations of quality library services in order to redesign their services and reorient their collection. Libraries need to ensure that their services both meet customer’s needs and expectations to the highest degree. Practical tools have also been developed for the assessment of customer’s expectations and perceptions of service quality. Good service to customers, is one of the primary goals of service organizations like libraries, and is the ability of any service provider to provide promised products/services. Libraries are essentially learning organizations stimulating academic and research activities by providing access to world-class information resources Abomoge (2014).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study is a descriptive survey design, using a modified version of the SERVQUAL to elicit data. The population of this study included all researchers institutes, such as scientists, postgraduate student in ten selected research institutes in South West Nigeria. A total of 119 researchers was used. this is represented in table 1.
1 Distribution of Institutes selected
Source: Field Survey June, 2021
Table 1 revealed that 10(11.9%) respondents were sampled in NISER library, 30(25.2%) respondents were sampled in IITA library, 18(15.1%) were sampled in NIOMR library, 9(7.6%) were sampled in NIIA library, 9(7.6%) respondents were sampled in NIBRRI library, 9(7.6) respondents were sampled in POREIN library, 10(11.9%) respondents were sampled in NIEPA library, 8(6.7%) respondents were sampled in EMDI-A library, 8(6.7%) respondents were sampled in NACETEM library and the remaining 8(6.7%) respondents were sampled in CERD library.
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Cadre
Table 2 showing the cadre of respondents in the libraries sampled showed that majority were research officer 1, 45(38.4%). This was followed by Technologist or technical officers, 26(22.1%) and assistant research officers 19(16.3%). The least number was research fellow with 1(1.2%).
Table 3 : Educational qualification of Respondents
Table 3, showing the educational qualification of the respondents, revealed that 22(19.0%) respondents had PhD, 46(39.7%) respondents had masters degree, 30(25.9%) respondents had Bachelor degree, 10(8.6%) had Ordinary National Diploma, 8(6.9%) had Senior School Certificate.
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by Age
From the table 4 showed that 20(17.2%) respondents were within the age range of 20-29, 52(44.9%) respondents were within the age range of 30-39, 31(26.7%) respondents were within the age range of 40-49, 13(11.2%) respondents were within the age range of 50-59.
Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status
Table 5 showed that 59(50.8%) of the respondents were married, while 55(47.4%) were single, 2(1.7%) were divorced and separated respectively and only 1(0.9%) was widowed.
Research Question 1: What are the users’ expectations of the research library service?
Table 6
3
document in an easily
retrievable order
Table 6 demonstrates the relationship between respondents’ expected importance in each of the twenty attributes ranked from 1 to 20 with their corresponding perceived ranking. The five most important areas expected by users were (1) Sufficient space for reading (4.67 out of 5), (2). Good lighting and ventilation (4.66 out of 5), (3) Clean and hygienic (4.63 out of. 5), (4) Good library layout (4.55 out of 5) and (5) Adequate collection of reference books (4.45 out of 5). “The five least important areas were (1) All documents lent out for home reading (3.20 out of 5) (2) Service at free cost (3.21 out of 5), (3) Issuance of books for as many days the user needs (3.31 out of 5), (4) Provides the required documents for user the first time (3.64 out of 5) and (5) Provides Xerox service (3.65 out of 5).
Research Question 2: What are the perceptions of users regarding the quality of the research institute library service?
Table 7
Table 7 shows the relationship between respondents* perceived importance in each of the forty attributes ranked from 1 to 40 with their corresponding expected ranking. The five most important areas perceived by users were (1) Good layout of libraries (4.94 out of 5), {2} Good lighting and ventilation (4.29 out of 5), (3) Clean and hygienic (4.29 out of 5), (4) Accessibility of libraries (4.25 out of 5) and (5) Atmosphere for serious reading-(4.0l out of 5). The five least: important areas were (1) Provides the required documents for user the first time (3.12 out of 5) (2) Issuing sufficient number of documents the user needs (313 out of 5), (3) Issuance of books for as many days the user needs (3.13 out of .5), (4) All document lent out for home reading (3.16 out of 5) and. (5) Regular interaction with users (3.2.5 out of 5).
Research Question 3: What are the gaps between user expectations and user perceptions?
Table 8
E
(P)
P
(E-P)
4.3.3 Ranked gap analysis
As seen in table 8 the five areas with the more significant gaps between user expectations and service quality for the twenty attributes are (1) Research library educates user (gap score 0.84, with an expectation Milking 19/33)), (2) Sufficient space is required for user (0.73, with an expectation ranking 1/11)), (3) Adequate collection of available reference books (0.73, with an expectation ranking 5/21), (4) Librarian regularly interacts’ with the. users (0.67: with an expectation ranking 31/36) and (5) Keeps document always in correct order (0,64, with an expectation ranking 13/24).
The five areas with the smallest gaps between user expectations and .satisfaction for twenty five attributes were (]) Good layout is necessary (-0.39, with an expectation ranking 4/1), (2) Provides service at free cost (-0,35, with an expectation ranking 39/28), (3) All .documents lent1″ out for home reading (0,04, with an expectation ranking 40/37), Staff having sufficient knowledge to answer users queries (0.14, with an expectation ranking 26/12) and Issuing of documents to users for as many days (0.18, with an expectation ranking 38/38).
Research Question 4: What are users attitude to quality services in research institute libraries?
Table 9
7.8%
51.3%
53.9%
30.4%
24.6%
2.5,4%
11,0%
5.1%
12.8%
6.1%
10..5%
9.3%
L
8.5%
5.9%
30.5%
45.8%
9.4%
3.4%
20.7%
12.1%
8.4%
18.5%
4.2%
14.4%
41,5%
34.7%
6.8%
The ranking of the attitude of users towards quality service in research institute-libraries, as revealed in Table 9 is as follows:
The library serene environment is quite inviting (Mean =4.03) was ranked highest by their mean score rating and was followed in succession by I spend more time in my library due to good lighting, ventilation and comfortable environment (Mean =3.93), research Work is easy because of fewer dead links and access to full text (Mean =3,59), research work is better in my library because of high visibility and access to entire collections (Mean =3.59), I am at home-when consulting library staff in my institution, because they are approachable (Mean =3.45), the selective dissemination of information in my institute library is highly objective and unbiased (Mean =3.42), I use library often because of staffs promptness and creativity in integrated searches (Mean =3.35), indexing and abstracting are given keen attention for aiding research retrieval (Mean =3.35), reprography services, information packaging and individual delivery in my library gives me added advantage (Mean =3.31), I have confidence of having access to extensive online and print document, because of my library’s interlibrary cooperation and resource sharing (Mean =3.26), .my library does not sufficiently meet my needs as its collection is limited to its holdings alone (Mean =3.13), printed materials lack visibility and good organisation, making retrieval hectic (Mean =2.92), in my library research work is cumbersome due to lack of access to online resources (Mean -2.91), reprography services and individual information delivery do not exist in my institute library (Mean =2.88), indexing and abstracting are not a priority in my library (Mean =2.81), the selective dissemination of information in my library is highly discriminatory (Mean =2.74), I hate coming to library often because of staffs non-challant and lack of initiative to answer users’ queries (Mean =2.65), I am afraid of consulting library staff because of unfriendly disposition (Mean =2.45), I hate staying too long in the library due to noise and distractions (Mean =236) and lastly by I tend to avoid my library because of poor lighting and ventilation (Mean =2:02) respectively.
Testing of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between user expectation and perception of quality service by the respondents. To establish the relationship between users’ expectation and perception of quality service in the research institutes, the frequency of users’ expectation were correlated with the scores of their perception of quality service and the result is as shown in the table below.
Table 10: Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Users’ expectation and Perception of Quality Service
Perception of Quality Service
149.1807
19.42788
** Sig at .05level
The table above shows that there is a positive significant relationship between Users’ expectations and perception quality service in the research institute libraries. (R= 0.329**, N-119, P< 0.01). The correlation is significant; hence the Null Hypotheses is rejected.” Therefore, there is a significant relationship between the users’ expectation and perception of quality service. This implies that users’ expectation will always influence their perception of quality service and also, as users’ expectation increases, their perception of quality service also increases.
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between users’ attitude and perception of quality service by the respondents.
To show the relationship that exists in hypothesis two, a correlation was done on the frequency of users’ attitude with the scores of their perception of quality service and the result is as shown in the table below.
Table 11: Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Users’ attitude and Perception of Quality Service
150.7733
16.72397
Table 11 above shows that there is a positive significant relationship between Users’ attitudes and perception of quality service in the research institute libraries. (R= 0.306**, N=l 19, P< 0.01. The correlation is significant; hence the Null Hypotheses is rejected. Therefore, there is a significant relationship between the users’ attitudes and perception of quality service. This implies that users’ attitude will always influence the perception of quality service and also, as users’ attitude increases, their perception of quality service will positively increase. ,
Hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between users’ attitude and expectation, of quality service by the respondents.
To show the relationship that exists in hypothesis three, a correlation was done on the frequency of users’ attitude with the scores of their expectation to quality service and the result is as shown in the table below.
Table 12: Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Users’ attitude and Expectation to Quality Services
Expectation of Quality Service
163.7791
13.59792
**Sig. at .05 level
Table 12 above shows that there is a positive significant relationship between Users’ attitudes and expectation of quality service in the research institute libraries. (R= 0.203**, N=l 19, P< 0.05. The correlation is significant; hence the Null Hypotheses is rejected. Therefore, there is a significant relationship between the users’ attitudes and expectation of quality service. This implies that users’ attitude will always influence the expectation of quality service and also, as users’ attitude increases, their expectation of quality service will positively increase.
Hypothesis 4: Expectation and Perception of quality service will significantly influence Attitude to quality service of the respondent.
Table 13: Regression analysis of expectation mid perception of quality service on attitude
Residual
Total
59.221
10.92.957
116
119
28.946
R = .656
R2 = .431
Adj R2 = .423
The results from Table 13 revealed that expectation and perception of quality service have significant multiple effect on attitude of respondent (R=0.656,’p < 0.05). The table further showed the R-square value of .431 which implies that 43.1% of the total variance of the attitude of users’ is accounted for by the two factors. The remaining 56.9% is due to other factors. The R value of .656 is also significant (F = 52.251; p < .05). Hence, the relationship among the independent variables and attitude of users’ is positive, strong and significant. Further data analysis revealed the relative contribution of each of the independent variables, namely, perception of quality service ((3 – .299, P <.05 and expectation of quality service (p = .437, P < 05) on the attitude of respondents, both expectation and perception were significant. The relative effect of Expectation and Perception of quality service on attitude to quality service of the respondents is presented in Table 4.4.4b.
Table 14: The summary of the relative effect of expectation and perception of quality service on attitude of the respondent
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The demographic findings revealed that respondents were from different institutes but those from IITA had the highest population (25.2%). Findings also revealed that the highest numbers of respondents’ age were within the age range of 30-39 years (44.9%). Majority of the respondents were married (50.8%), while (47.4%) were single. (39.7%)-of the researchers in South West, Nigeria, are basically Masters degree holders. The least qualification of National Diploma and Senior School Leaving certificate were also discovered (8.6%) and (6.9%) respectively. This indicate that majority of the researchers in the research institutes (65.6%) possessed postgraduate degrees. This tally with the educational qualification data, as a Research Officer 1, must basically possess a masters’ degree. Parasuraman et al. (1988) defined expectations as “Expectations are desires or wants of consumers, i.e., what they feel a service provider should offer rather than would offer”. The overall expectations mean (4.67) on a five point semantic differential scale shows that the users have very high expectations of service quality of the research libraries. The expectations of respondents fall in the range of (3.20- 4.67).
These findings are in sharp contrast to the survey results in the Academic libraries service quality measurement of the University of Hong Kong libraries in 2004. According to Hollis (2009), the highest expected service attribute was related to books in your discipline or relevance of information. Attributes related to electronic resources, convenient opening hours and staff related attributes such as knowledgeable staff and the provision of services at the promised time are also included in the first ten expectations (Hollis, 2002). User perception is viewed (Hernon & Altaian, 1998) as the impressions formed from library experiences about the library services provided to them. The overall mean (4.94) on a five point scale shows that user’s perceptions are very high about the service quality of research libraries as against their expectations, and perceptions mean range from 3.12 to 4.94.
It is important to remember that expectations are in one’s imagination and formed before experience that particular library service while perceptions are reality and depicts the real performance of library services. Respondents perceived “Regular interactions with Users” (Mean Score 3.25) and “Providing required document for user the very first time” (Mean Score 3.12) least. It shows that libraries lack direct and much personal contact with users. These aspects are related to, providing required document the first time, issuing sufficient number of documents the user needs and staff relationship with users on regular and consistent basis, The least mean score indicates that these library items have low quality from respondent’s perspectives and need to be improved drastically. The results from calculation of gap differences between desired expectations and perceptions of actual service of users were ranked respectively in order to investigate what attributes of service quality meet, exceed, or fall shot from the user perspectives. According to Lead Frog research (2012) for each item, a “gap score” is calculated as the difference between the raw “expectations score” and the raw “perceptions score”. The results revealed that all attributes of service quality basically do not meet the user:;’ expectations, except “Good layout” (-0.39) and “Providing service at free cost” (-0.35). The – reason is that it is the natural tendency for people to wish for more than they have. From user perspectives, the dimensions “User Education” (0.84) and the place “sufficient space” (0.73) are most problematic as the gap differences are larger.
It is worthy of note that users, expectation have increased geometrically because of the advent of information technology and the Internet. This finding is also in the same vain with the findings of Cullen (2011) that “Modern libraries face crises of survival and development due to advanced modern information management systems and competition from vendors, publishers, mass media, online services and internet”. User’s expectations have increased as a result of rapid development of advanced information technology, increasing generation of new knowledge and information availability from both printed as well online media. The finding revealed From Table above, it seems that respondents have positive attitudes towards the serene, lighted and ventilated environment of the library; access to online and printed texts especially that nearly all the positive statements attracted very favourable responses by majority of respondents while the negative ones received otherwise. These findings are in line with some previous findings by: Anne and Lars (2003), Lewis (1991) Issa (2011), who have found in their previous studies positive attitude towards good environment and electronic information resources in the libraries studied.
The result of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis indicated that there is a positive relationship between the expectation and perception of users. That is, the relationship between the expectation and perception of quality service by researchers in the South West Research Institutes Libraries was positive and significant.
CONCLUSION
The study identified some pivoted issues regarding quality service provision in research libraries inference was drawn from the outcome of the study that user perception and attitude to quality service have significant multiple effects on patronage and future of the research libraries to the parent organization and the society at large. Moreover, librarians in research institute have to make themselves accountable to their parent organisation to justify, whatever investment is made on the libraries. The best way to achieve this is through, constant assessment of evaluation of the library services as their output to the society. The survival of research institute libraries in Nigeria in the knowledge age, the era of information explosion, and virtual libraries and globalization, depend on realistic and objective assessment of the services from the users or researcher perception.
Recommendations
The following recommendations were made based on the findings of this study:
REFERENCES
Abomoge S.O. (2014). Cognitive accessibility and utilization of information resources. An unpublished MLIS project submitted to the department of Library, Archival and Information Studies, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Ajibero, M.I. (2011). Special libraries in Nigeria: A Testschrift for Ezekiel Bejide Bankole, ed. By Oladokun, S.O. pp. 181-200.
Anne Motenson and Lars, G. (2005). Improving library users: perceived quality, satisfaction and loyalty: An Integrated Measurement and management system. The Journal of Academic librarianship. Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 140-147.
Augello, C. (2014). The awareness and use of electronic information in research libraries. Journal of information literary, 4(2) 6-22.
Bavakutty, M. and Majeed L.C. Abdul (2015); Method for Measuring Quality of Libraries. New Delhi: Ess Publication.
Beeaham S. (2014). The objectives of research libraries and **** methods for measuring quality of library. New Deli: Ess publications.
Cullen, R. (2015) Perspectives on user satisfaction survey. Library Trends, 49 (4), 662-6.
Desaez, J. (2008). Total quality management in libraries: a perspective Approach, cited 6th international CA LIBER. Pp 415-419,
Heruon, P. and Altman, E. (2008). Assessing Service quality: Satisfying the expectation of library customers. Chicago: American Library Association.
Hollis Landum et al., (2009) Measuring is system service Quality with SERVQUAL: Users perception of Relative Importance of the SERVRE R.F Dimensions.
Issa, A.O. et al (2011). Attitudes of undergraduate students of the University of Ibadan towards computerized services at the Kenneth Dike Library.
LEAD FROG RESEARCH (2012). Evaluation of Parliamentary library Serviced: optimizing client source delivery.
Lewis, B.R. (1991). Managing Service Quality. In Managing Quality. New York: Academic Press, pp. 234-235.
Lilley, E. & Usherwood, B. (2018). Wanting it all: The relationship between expectations and the public’s perceptions of public services. Library management 21(1), 13-24. Retrieved June 6, 2021, from the Emerald database.
Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry L.L. (1988). “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”. Journal of Retailing. Vol 64 No. 1, pp 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithami, V.A. and Berry L.L (2004). “Alternative scales for measuring service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria”. Journal of Retailing, vol 70 No. 3, pp 20-30.
Popoola, S. (2002). Users attitudes towards microcomputer use in agric research libraries in Nigeria. Journal of Librarianship in Information service in Africa. 2:1 pp. 15-25.
Raimi, F. (2002). Interest and value of perception. Journal of marketing research, 30(1), 7-27.
Reitz, J.M. (2019). Research institutes libraries and services provided the products of primary and secondary information. An unpublished MLIS project submitted to the department of library, archival and information studies, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Sey et al., (2006). Users perception and satisfaction references services in University libraries of punjas Pakistan: A survey library philosophy and practice.
PDF VIEWER
Download [504.44 KB]
18,185 total views, 1 views today
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Post Comment
