The main purpose of the first question was to learn about the experience of the participants in their roles as library users. The recruitment aimed to select participants who had used such types of services so that they would be able to share their opinions about these. The second question was often asked when the participant had already answered the first one and follow up questions. It was designed to discover non-technical aspects that were not discussed earlier in the interview. The third question was intended to gather information in the case in which the participants answered “no”. In this case, they could still provide information based on their understanding, knowledge, or observation of the library practice.
Apart from the main questions, follow-up questions such as, “Could you tell me more about it?” or “Could you give me an example?” were also used to seek further explanation or to add details to an issue of interest. It was intended that the interview questions and follow-up questions avoided using terminologies or jargon because “participatory library” and “Library 2.0” were not always terms with clear definitions. Lay language was also used in probing questions to orient participants to the phenomenon of study.
Data analysis was implemented simultaneously with data collection and adhered to grounded theory principles (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Tan, 2010). This means that the data analysis started right after the first interview. A technique called “constant comparison” was used throughout the analysis stage. The findings (i.e. initial concepts and categories) resulting from the first interview served as the basis for the second interview. This approach was applied until the end of data collection and analysis. The analysis was first carried out manually and then a MAXQDA 10 software program was used to help organise and manage codes together with interview transcripts during the analysis process.
The analysis revealed seven categories delineating the experiences of participants in using emerging technologically based library services and non-technological services. Each category stands for a phenomenon, that is a problem, an issue, an event, or a happening that is defined as being significant to research participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For example, in this research, the seven main categories or cornerstones of a participatory library are identified as “connection”, “sharing”, “peer support”, “authority”, “prosumption”, “playground”, and “comfort”.
Each category was structured by concepts (concepts are words that stand for ideas contained in data; they are interpretations, the products of analysis). Each concept has a different name and level of contraction, for example, properties and dimensions. “Properties” are attributes or characteristics of a concept. They are the delineation of which defines and gives meaning to the concept (Strauss &...