迈杜古里大学和尼日利亚联邦理工大学图书馆管理风格的比较分析

I. Haruna
{"title":"迈杜古里大学和尼日利亚联邦理工大学图书馆管理风格的比较分析","authors":"I. Haruna","doi":"10.4314/GLJ.V21I1-2.69497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper examined, on a comparative basis, the management styles practised in Ramat Library, University of Maiduguri and Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida Library Complex, Federal University of Technology, Minna. A table of random numbers was used to select a sample size of 125 out of 208 personnel in the libraries. A sampling fraction of 60% was adopted to avoid bias and for a gain in precision of estimates among others. Of the 125 copies of the questionnaire administered on the personnel, 94 were retrieved and found usable, giving a response rate of 75.2%. Data was analysed using descriptive, Chi-square (X2) and t-test statistics. Findings revealed that, participative (democratic) and participative (authoritative) were the management styles predominantly practised by the libraries. There was a significant relationship between the styles practised but no significant difference between the application of practised styles in both libraries. It was established that though the National Universities Commission recommends participative management, no one management style can be applied in isolation; a combination of two or more of them work best. To this extent, recommendations were made on the basis of the findings.","PeriodicalId":399599,"journal":{"name":"Ghana Library Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management styles in libraries of University of Maiduguri and Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria: A comparative analysis\",\"authors\":\"I. Haruna\",\"doi\":\"10.4314/GLJ.V21I1-2.69497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper examined, on a comparative basis, the management styles practised in Ramat Library, University of Maiduguri and Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida Library Complex, Federal University of Technology, Minna. A table of random numbers was used to select a sample size of 125 out of 208 personnel in the libraries. A sampling fraction of 60% was adopted to avoid bias and for a gain in precision of estimates among others. Of the 125 copies of the questionnaire administered on the personnel, 94 were retrieved and found usable, giving a response rate of 75.2%. Data was analysed using descriptive, Chi-square (X2) and t-test statistics. Findings revealed that, participative (democratic) and participative (authoritative) were the management styles predominantly practised by the libraries. There was a significant relationship between the styles practised but no significant difference between the application of practised styles in both libraries. It was established that though the National Universities Commission recommends participative management, no one management style can be applied in isolation; a combination of two or more of them work best. To this extent, recommendations were made on the basis of the findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ghana Library Journal\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ghana Library Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4314/GLJ.V21I1-2.69497\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ghana Library Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/GLJ.V21I1-2.69497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文在比较的基础上审查了迈杜古里大学Ramat图书馆和米纳联邦科技大学Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida图书馆综合大楼实行的管理方式。采用随机数表从图书馆的208名工作人员中抽取125人作为样本。抽样比例为60%是为了避免偏差和提高估计的精度。在对人员发放的125份问卷中,回收了94份并发现可用,回复率为75.2%。数据分析采用描述性、卡方(X2)和t检验统计量。调查结果表明,参与式(民主)和参与式(权威)是图书馆主要采用的管理方式。实践风格之间存在显著关系,但在两个图书馆中实践风格的应用之间没有显著差异。确定的是,虽然国家大学委员会建议参与式管理,但没有一种管理方式可以孤立地适用;其中两个或两个以上的组合效果最好。在这方面,建议是根据调查结果提出的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Management styles in libraries of University of Maiduguri and Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria: A comparative analysis
The paper examined, on a comparative basis, the management styles practised in Ramat Library, University of Maiduguri and Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida Library Complex, Federal University of Technology, Minna. A table of random numbers was used to select a sample size of 125 out of 208 personnel in the libraries. A sampling fraction of 60% was adopted to avoid bias and for a gain in precision of estimates among others. Of the 125 copies of the questionnaire administered on the personnel, 94 were retrieved and found usable, giving a response rate of 75.2%. Data was analysed using descriptive, Chi-square (X2) and t-test statistics. Findings revealed that, participative (democratic) and participative (authoritative) were the management styles predominantly practised by the libraries. There was a significant relationship between the styles practised but no significant difference between the application of practised styles in both libraries. It was established that though the National Universities Commission recommends participative management, no one management style can be applied in isolation; a combination of two or more of them work best. To this extent, recommendations were made on the basis of the findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信