Troll (2001) acknowledges that changes in the library environment are hardly perceived because most librarians use traditional methods, the scope of which is too narrow, to assess the performance of the facilities. This leads to a lack of adequate information on the prevailing conditions around the libraries. Indeed Troll (2002) asserts that the amount of available information about why and how libraries are changing is minuscule and speculative. She further explains that this lack of reliable information on changes contributes to the apparent lack of dynamism in academic and research libraries. She also asserts that libraries cannot effectively prepare for and position themselves for the future until the institutions and librarians understand their changing roles and environment. She warns that if librarians do not take this matter seriously then the speed of change will inhibit, if not paralyse, their attempts to make sense of what is happening in libraries and the remedial actions they are taking to improve the facilities they provide. The future of academic and research libraries depends on how well this change is perceived and managed. Singh (2009) explains that libraries should prepare for change in library outreach, user services, collection development and management, library automation and networking, technical services, library physical space, library finance and staffing.

The need for accountability in libraries and librarians has also increased, especially in light of the fact that funding sources are dwindling. Against all expectations of academic and research institutions, libraries do not seem to be prioritised in many instances and are considered as non-essential compared to infrastructure and corporate staffing needs. As library communities get more complex, academic and research institutions seem to be asking that the libraries should justify why they should be entrusted with the stewardship of organisational knowledge management. CLIR (2008) warns that if libraries are not careful, they will be left with ‘low-margin’ services which no other institution would like to offer while leaving the ‘high-margin’ services to the private and commercial sectors. The institutions also seem to be asking librarians to justify their position in the research cycle. This trend is critical because such institutions measure their success in terms of their research output and most of the time libraries are evaluated using profit-based commercial metrics. CLIR (2008) further cautions that evaluating the academic and research libraries using a ‘return on investment’ rather than a ‘public good’ (‘social contract’) model could drive decisions which are at odds with the stated institutional missions. Indeed this trend calls for a review of the performance indicators librarians collect and how they are reported. Troll (2001) points out that the traditional approaches to library performance management and reporting do not sufficiently capture the issues of concern to modern library users.

Even though the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (2010) recommends that the annual budget of an academic or research library should be approximately six percent of the institutional budget, excluding the capital and physical maintenance costs, most library budgets are dwindling by the day. Troll (2002) explains that most libraries now find it difficult to squeeze all the capital and operational expenses out of the available budgets. The ACRL (2010) predicts that budget deficits will continue to increase. This underscores the need for the libraries to demonstrate their value to the organisations and to mobilise resources from other sources. At the same time CLIR (2008) suggests that libraries should strive to deliver their services efficiently to keep the operational costs low as a way of coping with the budget deficit. Libraries should constantly explore ways of delivering the services more affordably.

Academic and research libraries are also facing what some scholars have called ‘McDonaldisation of libraries’. Larney (1996) explains that the term McDonaldisation is used to describe how the aspects that characterise the American hamburger chain McDonald’s are finding their way into and impacting on various patterns of modern society. He identifies the dimensions of McDonaldisation as efficiency, calculability, predictability and control. Larney (1996) quoting Manley (1981) explains that the principles by which McDonald’s has been known, such as its service to a wide range of customers, cost-effectiveness, filling a pertinent need, and having employees who always smile, can find easy application in libraries. Quinn (2000) suggests that the fast-service approach of McDonald’s can be applied in libraries as many more users appear to be less willing to wait for services. He further explains that fast-food joints achieve fast service by letting the customer perform part of the work and points out that the same approach is finding its way into academic and research libraries where users are now expected to ‘self-serve’ some services. Similarly, he explains that the ‘just-in-time’ collection development approach has been influenced by the efficiency element of McDonaldisation. Quinn (2000) further explains that academic and research libraries achieve the predictability and control attributes characteristic of McDonald’s through standardisation of services, products, tools and processes. However, Larney (1996) cautions that the application of these principles casually can lead to oversimplification of the information delivery process. He also points out that McDonald’s does not cater for special interests, nor does it claim to serve nutritious food. He further explains that the penchant for fast-food efficiency may not apply in academic and research libraries, simply because information is not a commodity. He cautions that information cannot be treated as if it was a ‘large Coke and fries’ and points out that effective user-centred information delivery takes longer than assembling the informational equivalent of some ‘combo’ meal.

Information literacy forms the basis for lifelong learning and is common to all disciplines, to all learning environments, and to all levels of education. It enables learners to master content and extend their investigations, become more self-directed, and assume greater control over their own learning (ACRL, 2000). The information literacy levels of academic and research library users are also growing as a higher percentage of library users are more knowledgeable on information services than before (Troll, 2001). ACRL (2000) points out the benefits of a literate user to the library. A literate user determines the extent of information needed, accesses the needed information effectively and efficiently, evaluates information and its sources critically, incorporates the selected information into his or her knowledge base, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose, and understands the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and accesses and uses information ethically and legally. Literate library users have higher expectations, to meet which they put pressure on the libraries.

The open source and access movement is another major driver of change in the operating environment of academic and research libraries. With the open-access and open-source framework, creators of intellectual works generally grant to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to their work, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display it publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship, as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use. Given the growing significance of open access to researchers and students, academic and research libraries have to design and deliver their services in ‘open’ compliant models. Self-archiving and open-access publishing are some of the strategies academic and research libraries use to deliver the ideals of the ‘open’ movement.

Other drivers of change in academic and research libraries are the growing globalisation of learning and research and the increase in international partnerships. Indeed, many major scientific research projects have been mostly global affairs, to which contributions have been harnessed from all over the world. However, research and learning contexts are now steadily becoming globalised through various levels of cooperation and collaboration, made possible and facilitated by ICTs. The globalisation of learning and research is impacting on the nature and scope of library services offered in research and learning institutions.

Information supply has transitioned from scarcity in the ancient civilisations to great abundance in our day; from papyrus to the Internet (Sloniowski, 2005; Ramana, 2006). Therefore, the need to filter available information is important. Researchers now need greater information literacy skills than ever before. Rainie (2009) notes that the volume of information has grown drastically; the variety of information, its sources and format of presentation have increased; the speed of information flow has increased; times and places when and where communication media can be accessed have multiplied; the number of information perspectives and points of view has exploded; and people’s interest in and alertness to the need for ready information have grown. These changes are attributed largely to the fact that digital information is easier to reproduce and distribute. The ease of production enables even the most ephemeral information to be captured and shared (Stahl, 1995). The information explosion has also complicated the infosphere, making it difficult for users to identify, select, access, and use authoritative information. This complexity works against the expectations of users, who generally seek simplicity. Head (2008) explains that students in the digital age are overwhelmed and points out that in general, students reported being challenged, confused, and frustrated by the research process, despite the convenience, relative ease, or ubiquity of the Internet. They also pointed out that the frustration is a result of the effects of information overload and being inundated with resources. Burke (2010) also explains that most library users report having difficulty traversing a vast and ever changing information landscape. While information overload is an old concept, its manifestations in the digital age present slightly different opportunities for librarians to prove their ongoing worth.

Several other substantial changes in the research sphere exist. Firstly, research projects are increasingly becoming interdisciplinary, bringing together researchers from diverse backgrounds on similarly diverse terms of engagement. Likewise, research projects are becoming global and transcending individual, institutional and national boundaries (Braman, 2006). Secondly, researchers have realized that effective use of data generated from research is impeded by its fragmentation across institutional boundaries and barriers caused by processes such as redaction. Conscious actions are being taken to remove such bottlenecks to research information flow. Thirdly, scientific research is becoming seamlessly integrated in society. This has expanded the range of groups which consider themselves as stakeholders in the research process and projects. Fourthly, researchers seek fast, flexible, affordable but reliable information systems. Rimmer et al. (2006) explain that most researchers now rely heavily on their colleagues and networking events for research information. Further, self-archiving systems enabling researchers to share or access unpublished manuscripts, working papers, prepublication items and articles have become invaluable in making research results quickly available (Braman, 2006). Finally, there is a concomitant increase in research that involves scholars as well as graduate students and undergraduates (CLIR, 2008). These changes, among other factors, influence the type and pace of change with which academic and research libraries have to deal.

The Centre for Information Behaviour and Evaluation Research (CIBER) (2008) reports that researchers of the future seem to have embraced a new information-seeking behaviour that is not compatible with the old library service model nurtured in a hard-copy system. Conversely, this information-seeking behaviour is characterised as being horizontal, bouncing, checking and viewing in nature. The researchers are perceived as being ‘promiscuous’, diverse and volatile. The information-seeking behaviour they exhibit is described as a form of skimming activity, where they view just one or two pages from an online resource and then ‘bounce’ out, perhaps never to return. The Centre for Information Behaviour and Evaluation Research (2008) further suggests that these researchers: 1) are generally more competent with technology and expect a lot from it; 2) prefer interactive systems and are turning away from being passive consumers of information; 3) have drastically shifted to digital forms of communication such as texting rather than talking; 4) multitask in most, if not all, areas of their lives; 5) prefer infotainment approaches to traditional information provision; 6) have limited tolerance of delay in the provision of services; 7) find their peers more credible as sources of information than authority figures and structures; 8) feel the need to remain constantly connected; 9) believe everything is on the web; and 10) are format-agnostic.

Salwasser and Murray-Rust (2002) conducted a needs assessment of the researchers at the Oregon State University libraries and concluded that they wanted to find, retrieve, integrate, and synthesise well-organised information, quickly. They also found that although many scholars of librarianship and practitioners recommend the involvement of the relevant stakeholders at all stages of new library developments, the common approach still seemed to exclude the users. The Research Information Network (RIN) (2011) investigated the information requirements of researchers in the humanities and found that they want easy access to content which is simple to cite and reuse. The study also confirmed that the humanities researchers consider the library as a networking ‘space’, not just a place to conduct research. The study reported that the humanities researchers are now working with new tools and technologies in increasingly collaborative environments, producing and using information in diverse formats and media. Significantly, the study confirmed that the researchers are reluctant to use information sources which require them to go to a physical library. Wang et al. (2007) also report that academic researchers in the United States, Greece and China have embraced reciprocal peer interaction to generate and share important research information both formally and informally. They also reiterate that the Internet and other ICTs have become vital to research information seeking and use. Evidently, modern academic and research library users are comfortable with, and enthusiastic about, technology; expect instant gratification; prefer downloading or getting information digitally; have little time; prioritise convenience; desire easy access; and prefer discovery (Ramos, 2007; Ayre, 2008; CIBER, 2008; Rainie, 2009).

As pointed out earlier, modern researchers are not just content consuming library users. They are content creators, making their own content and augmenting existing material through annotations (adding tags or comments) or cross-referencing (adding links) within a dynamic and collaborative information space (Pienaar and Smith, 2007; Dussin and Ferro, 2009). Searchable tags supplied by users, and in their own language, could be more useful than those developed through conventional means.

Some scholars have also argued that, for this new breed of users, conversations, research and learning never end (Primus, 2009). The users interact and create resources with colleagues and with the librarians and thus blur the lines between the user and librarian, creator and consumer, as well as an authority and a novice (Maness, 2006). Consequently, they appreciate efforts to empower them to create or manage content (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007). Furthermore, these users are creative. In fact, many of them create as much as they consume and want to share and collaborate. They want library systems to be easy, quick, recognisable and flexible (Pauli, 2008). They view the library as a platform where user-contributed content is being used to add value, is fun to work with and has something for everyone (Ayre, 2008). Though most of the information searching and delivery tools embraced by these users are free, studies indicate that these users are also ready to pay for any information, product or service they consider valuable.

These users prefer to be given appropriate options for information format, method of delivery, and fulfilment type, including loan, copy, digital copy, and purchase (Ayre, 2008). They also would like to be able to personalise their spaces (whether digitally or physically), for instance choosing the background colours of the website, font sizes and faces, or greetings. Even though boundaries are inevitable, modern academic and research library users prefer experimenting with the widest range of options. Being given options allows these users to feel that they are in charge of their usage.

The users relish being in control (Ramos, 2007). It is also a perspective of self-service where patrons conceptualise, actualise and review their own usage. Basically, the users are also described as visual learners; as having a low threshold for boredom and memorisation; needing customisable learning experiences; enjoying active or hands-on learning; and as being hypertext, not linear thinkers (Wheeler and Harris, 2006).

The emerging breed of patrons perceives library use as part and parcel of their lives and applies a multiplicity of approaches and technologies to seek and use information. To them, boundaries between social and work information-seeking activities are blurred and they apply several different methods of communication to satisfy their information needs. This explains why they are more comfortable with infotainment than conventional communication. They play video games, listen to music and use library information all at the same time. They are adventurous and live on the edge of emerging technologies. Thus, to them, email is dated; Instant Messenger, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Hangouts, PicSay, Viber and similar social networking sites are the tools to use to seek, use and share information. They also exhibit an expectation, or a desire, to use their own equipment, such as phones, laptops, or applications. So they expect the library to have facilities which will enable them to plug in and use their own appliances easily (Primus, 2009; Saecker, 2010). Libraries which provide more social information resources, such as video games, have registered an increment in usage, especially among younger users. On the other hand, the same libraries have experienced reduced usage from older patrons (Kirriemuir, 2007).

Users appreciate an information experience that is responsive and fuelled by questions; provokes conversation; is built on identity; uses monetary value as a point of comparison; demands personal investment; and is guided by safely made mistakes (Warlick, 2010). Significantly, they prefer to remain in constant touch with their colleagues and librarians through myriad communication tools and techniques. They value feedback mechanisms enabling them to provide suggestions and comments about the services and products of the library. So, whether it is rating or reviewing information resources through tagging or responding to user surveys, the emerging breed of academic and research library users would like open and seamless communication systems between them (the library users), the library and beyond, encompassing alerts, updates, feeds and social networks (Rainie, 2009). Critically, they also want their suggestions or comments acted on and when suggestions are not implemented, they would like dialogue on the decision (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007). Effective feedback mechanisms build relationships with the users and enhance their ability to contribute to and benefit from the library services. When the users understand the library’s plans and activities, they fit better with the library’s mission and do their part in facilitating its fulfilment (Metz, 2002; Singer and Griffith, 2010).

The emerging breed of academic and research library users does not see the library as the centre of its information environment. These users rely more on networked information systems such as the Internet and the World Wide Web. This partly explains why most library users now turn to the Internet instead of travelling to the library. However, some library scholars are quick to point out that this apparent overreliance on the Internet as the trusted source of ready information may be misguided. A better approach would balance the usage of the different forms of information source. Librarians should educate users on how to identify and use credible Internet information sources. Although the new breed of users may exhibit a know-it-all attitude, the librarians should impress upon them the fact that not all the ready pieces of information accessible via the World Wide Web and other sources are authoritative, especially on sensitive subjects.

The new breed of academic and research library patrons is accustomed to the notion that books and coffee go together just like movies and popcorn. They view the library space as useful for collaboration, entertainment and refreshment. They want information about their friends and submit personal updates to their friends, share events that they could go to, and wish to know what their friends are reading, who their friends know, and what movies their friends are watching. Libraries should therefore create spaces with a warm and welcoming ambiance and decor where users ‘love to linger longer’. The effective use of such spaces also requires effective programming to schedule activities such as book talks, software demonstrations, discussion groups and performances (stand-up comics or yoga) which create a platform to engage the users (Dilevko and Gottlieb, 2004; Isaacson, 2006). The greatest challenge in creating these socialising areas is space constraints in most libraries. Some libraries, especially in the West, have already begun modifying their structures to accommodate this emerging need (Dilevko and Gottlieb, 2004). But as the libraries take on these new roles, they are apparently admitting that they can no longer attract users with their collections alone. Similarly, debate is still ongoing as to whether attracting more people through social programming would translate to improved use of the library collections and services. Some scholars have also pointed out that though coffee and books may go together, they cannot share tables, because coffee damages books (Marshall, 1998). Nonetheless, the important issue here is the emerging opinion that library services will soon be amalgamated with other services. Thus, the library will no longer be a stand-alone institution, but a conglomeration of several entities providing integrated services.

Most current library users have embraced what some scholars have described as ‘mobility’, drawing them deeper into the digital world to the extent that they feel a sense of obligation to stay connected and cannot afford to be off the grid (Ramos, 2007; Rainie, 2009). They are nomadic and expect services where they are when they need them. They own mobile devices which have converged technologies such as video, audio, Geographical Positioning Systems (GPS) and/or wireless Internet connectivity, enabling them to remain connected any time, anywhere. In essence, the library is where the mobile device is. Whether on the train or in the grocery shop or restaurant, this breed of users can seek and use information from a wide array of mobile computing devices (Morgan, 2009; Tarulli, 2010). It is therefore incumbent on the library to deploy services, such as text message (SMS) referencing or mobile search applications, and content which is downloadable on mobile devices such as iPhones, iPads or Blackberries. Specifically, the library services should take into account the applications, interfaces and connectivity options most of their patrons use. With the soaring uptake of mobile telephony services, libraries can no longer ignore these devices. The potential of mobile devices to extend the reach of the library and enrich its feedback mechanisms cannot be overemphasised. Already, several libraries worldwide are delivering various library services on mobile devices. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, some academic and research libraries such as the University of Pretoria in South Africa and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in Kenya and Ethiopia are using social networking applications to deliver references, provide access to downloadable research publications, and disseminate library notifications, among other services on mobile devices.

From the foregoing, it is evident that the requirements and expectations of library users have changed and will continue to change. Currently, the library as an institution is faced by a new breed of users that exhibits unique information seeking behaviour which is inconsistent with conventional library tools and systems; is generally knowledgeable about ICT; seeks instant gratification and is intolerant of any forms of delay; wants the library services at the point of presence; wants to be in charge of information seeking and use; relies heavily on, and collaborates with, peers; multi-tasks; loves adventure and discovery; and enjoys infotainment. Table 1.1 below summarises these attributes of the new breed of patrons.

The academic and research library of the future will provide information services depending on where users are and on the tool(s) they have at their disposal. Thus, the services will be contextualised and adapted to the device(s) in their hands. The services will be offered on a ‘one service, multiple expressions’ model (Choh, 2011). The users will not care where or how the information is stored or organised but they will want to connect to that information around the clock using their own devices and in their own personalised physical or digital spaces.

Similarly, the academic and research library of the future will provide information instantaneously and at the point of need. The need for information will be urgent and the users will not wait for the librarians to bring any information to them. In most cases they will reach out for it themselves. Besides, owing to the need to remain innovative in designing and delivering library services, turnaround time for developing services will be shorter as the libraries experiment with new services in their effort to find new ways to reach the users (Choh, 2011). Consequently, self-service will be a significant component of most libraries as they move from staff intermediation to ‘Do-It-Yourself’ platforms. The librarians will support this by providing self-help tools to support the users to unlock the information resources available to them.

The academic and research library of the future will also be a gateway to information facilitated by librarians who will authenticate content and add value to the selected sources. It will also provide a social platform on which the users interact and benefit from social discovery of information and resources (Choh, 2011). The library will also preserve information and its sources. This role will be important in enhancing the longevity of information in a largely digital environment. The academic and research library of the future will connect content to other content to create a network of connected knowledge to enable patrons to discover related material for their research or for serendipity purposes.

The perception of the role of the librarian will continue to change, since librarians will continue to shift from being the custodians of information materials to assuming the role of coach, guide and curator, helping users to find what they want where they want it and not necessarily always having direct contact with patrons. Librarians will need to refresh old competencies and develop new ones which will most likely include skills for problem-solving, networking, negotiating, designing services, and engaging users in the digital spaces. Nonetheless, the librarians will continue to do what they do very well, that is, select the best materials for their users (Choh, 2011), irrespective of format. Similarly, new demands on librarians to manage knowledge resources such as web portals have arisen. The librarians will have to create, edit and generally maintain web content for their organisations, assigning metadata and key words (Pachat and Manjula, 2011). They will also take greater responsibility in managing research and learning products in their institutions.