Resource Sharing and Library Management Using Information

Communication Technology in University Libraries in North Eastern States, Nigeria

By
Dr. Amina Ibrahim Makintami (CLN/MNLA)
Resource sharing among libraries, which has become the common desire and practice, is a
commonly used umbrella term covering different forms of library activities – including
consortia/remote circulation, courier services, and other shared library service. Libraries and
library services are no longer individual university problems and that a collective approach is now
essential to solving these problems. The Objectives of the research are to investigate the state of
legal support of formal agreement in respect of the surveyed libraries, factors facilitating the joint
exchange of local and international publications in the university libraries, the methods that could
ensure the faster provision of information and literature support to clientele/users in the surveyed
libraries and the types of materials mostly shared among the libraries if any. Methodology-Survey
and Case study method was used, whereas structured questionnaire was being constructed to
address the research hypotheses and PPMC and SPSS are used in analyzing the results and testing
the hypotheses. Eleven (11) libraries were selected with a total population of five hundred and fifty
nine (559) personnel. Observation and Interview was used also as tools for data collection. Results
show that respondents strongly agreed, that writing a memorandum of understanding among
libraries could help in resource sharing, that there is written policy on resource sharing activities
in the libraries, that physical condition of materials gets deteriorated when shared and
Requirement of Internet access is their main challenge of resource sharing among others.
Recommendations are, that Nigerian University Library Consortium (NULIC) should be pro-active
in making sure that the designated ‘’national libraries’’ reclaim it roles as central points for
national bibliographic control. Whereas necessary resources should be sought out, and the
libraries should respect rules and develop the national Union catalogues and the national
bibliography, that a National Virtual Library should be created, which would act as the national
centre point of the nation’s bibliographic productivity, A National Advisory Board with
Government representation and librarians in the country should be created to oversee library
funding processes and resource sharing activities, Nigerian universities should re-evaluate their
respective curriculum to include the syllabus on library resource sharing which they have side
lined in library schools among others. In conclusions, Sharing of library resources is a type of
library cooperation, where every participating libraries share their unused and sometimes their
valuable resources with one another. Even though there have been many efforts that have been
initiated to fuel information resource sharing activities in the country, these initiatives have not
born much fruit in improving information resources sharing activities among university libraries in
the north-eastern zone of Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION
Resource sharing is a term which can be likened to any of library co-operation, library
networking, library linkage, library collaboration, library consortia, inter-library loan, document
supply, document delivery and access services. The terms are used interchangeably to describe
formal and informal co-operation, partnership and resource sharing activities in libraries.
Resource sharing among libraries, which has become the common desire and practice, is a
commonly used umbrella term covering different forms of library activities –including
consortia/remote circulation, courier services, and other shared library services. The regional
resources sharing network policy of Alberta Public Library Boards (2009) defined resource
sharing as the common use by two or more libraries of each other's assets, whether they are
equipment, staff, knowledge and expertise, materials facilities, or information resources. “The
present race between knowledge and book production has made it impossible for any library to
acquire all the printed literature in the world even in the smallest area of the spectrum of
knowledge, or to cope with even a fraction of the daily production literature” (Sangal, 1984).
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
It is significant to note that no university library by itself has any hope of being self-sufficient. It
is neither possible nor realistic for the university library, irrespective of its size, to be self-reliant
in terms of collections. Dougherty and Hughes (1991) observed that libraries and library services
are no longer individual university problems and that a collective approach is now essential. This
has remained largely on paper in Nigeria, the situation undoubtedly caused by a lack of mutual
trust, the political will to succeed, gross under-funding of libraries and friendly network, among
other critical issues, are the main bane of resource sharing.
Nevertheless, co-operation among libraries is no doubt the only realistic means of ensuring the
provision of resources needed for scholarly research and administration of justice in Nigeria. In
the aspect of financial support for most libraries in Nigeria, it has always been on the decline. This
unfortunate situation has drastically affected all aspects of library and information services in the
country. According to Chisenga, (2006) who noted that “unfortunately, there is a general absence
of viable National Information Infrastructure (NII) in most countries of Sub-Saharan Africa”, it is
against this backdrop that the researcher has investigated resource sharing and library
management using information communication technology in university libraries in the North
Eastern States, Nigeria. 
Research Questions
The following research questions that will guide this study.
 I. Is there any Policy Framework to Support Legal Agreements between the University
Libraries?
II. What factors facilitate the joint exchange of local and international publications in the
university libraries understudy?
III. What methods could ensure the faster provision of information and literature support to
clientele/users in the libraries?
IV. What types of materials are mostly shared among the libraries? 
Objectives of the Study
The general objective of the research is –
I. To investigate the state of legal support of formal agreement in respect of the surveyed
libraries. 
Specific Objectives to achieve the overall objectives are the following:
I. To determine the factors facilitating the joint exchange of local and international
publications in the university libraries.
II. To determine the methods that could ensure the faster provision of information and
literature support to clientele/users in the surveyed libraries.
III. To investigate the types of materials mostly shared among the libraries, if any.
The Main Hypotheses
H01. There is no significant relationship between factor affecting the joint exchange of local and
international publications among the university libraries and the services provided by these
libraries.
 H02. There is no significant relationship between methods that facilitate the faster provision of
information and the policy framework supporting the legal agreement between the university
libraries. 
H03. There is no significant relationship between the model used in resource sharing and co-
operation (consortium) among the libraries in North-Eastern Nigeria.
H04. There is no significant relationship between types of materials mostly shared for learning
and the time it takes to obtain the materials from other libraries.
Methodology of the Study
Eleven libraries was selected for this study based on having minimum library equipments and
facilities that are needed to provide basic library services. All of the surveyed libraries are located in
the north-eastern part of Nigeria. A descriptive method with both survey and case study was adopted,
as stated by Aina; (2002, pp31-47), “survey method involves gathering data on opinions of people on
a particular problem.” A structured questionnaire was being constructed to address the research
hypotheses and a Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) is used in testing the hypotheses.
The consensus of the respondents on a particular problem has provide a solution to it. 

Population and Sample

The overall purpose of the research is to determine the extent of resource sharing among Nigerian
University libraries. It focuses on six (6) Federal and five (5) state University Libraries in the North-
eastern State, Nigeria. These are; AbubakarTafawaBalewa University Library, Bauchi; Ramat
Library, University of Maiduguri; Ibrahim BadamasiBabangida Library, ModdiboAdama University
of Technology, Yola; University Library, Federal University Gashua; University Library, Federal
University, Wukari, Taraba state, University Library, Federal University Kashere, Gombe State;
Taraba State University Library, Jalingo; University Library, Bauchi State University, Gadau;
AbdulrahmanGhaji Library, Adamawa State University Mubi; Gombe State University Library,
Gombe; and Goodluck Jonathan Library, Yobe State University, Damaturu.

Population:
The population comprised 559 library personnel of all six (6) federal and five (5) state universities
in north-east zone, Nigeria
Sample Size:
A sample size consists of 100% of all library personnel (356) drawn from 6 federal and 5 state
university libraries in north-eastern Nigeria. (Busha and Harter1980) and this study will also
interview 11, key informants.
Instrument and Measurement Technique: 
Questionnaire, observation and interview were used as instruments and Quota Sampling, using Non
Probability Sampling was used for measurement. (Cooper $ Chandler 2009)
Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation

Age of the Respondents

frequency distribution age of the Respondents

Age Frequency Percent
20-29 108 23.7
30-39 180 39.5
40-49 105 23.0
50 AND ABOVE 63 13.8
Total 456 100.0
Sex of the Respondents
frequency distribution based on the gender of the Respondents
Sex Frequency Percent
Valid Male 286 62.7
Female 170 37.3

Total 456 100.0

frequency distribution of publications among libraries

Questions SA A D SD No
Response
I do think that writing a 206(45.2%) 150(32.9%) 65(14.3%) 34(7.5%) 1(0.2%)
memorandum of understanding
among libraries could help in
resource sharing.
I do think that copyright issues 116(25.4%) 184(40.4%) 94(20.6%) 54(11.8%) 8(1.8%)
affect the interlibrary loan.
I think there is a national 165(36.2%) 116(25.4%) 112(24.6%) 39(8.6%) 24(5.3%)
information policy that has
supported the legal agreement.
I do have a full understanding of 133(29.2%) 123(27.0%) 110(24.1%) 66(14.5%) 24(5.3%)
what policy framework is.
I think the introduction of the 142(31.1%) 158(34.6%) 121(26.5%) 29(6.4%) 6(1.3%)
policy framework could
promote resource sharing

activities in the library.

 
frequency distribution of policy framework 
Questions SA (%) A (%) D (%) SD (%) NoResponse(%)

There is a written policy on resource 185(40.6) 123(27.0) 94(20.6) 32(7.0%) 22(4.8)

sharing activities in the library.
I think written policy on resource 162(35.5) 59(12.9) 143(31.4) 81(17.8) 11(2.4)
sharing is necessary for Libraries.

I think a library staff competency 180(39.5) 139(30.5) 90(19.7) 19(4.2) 28(6.1)

affects handling resource sharing
activities.

 frequency distribution of the problem of exchange of materials

Problems SA A D SD No Response
A)The physical 101(22.1%) 68(14.9%) 99(21.7%) 172(37.7%) 16(3.5%)
condition of
materials gets
deteriorated
b) Materials are not 116(25.4%) 163(35.7%) 96(21.1%) 73(16.0%) 8(1.8%)
returned on time
74(16.2%) 100(21.9%) 178(39.0%) 82(18.0%) 22(4.8%)
c)Materials required
are sometimes not
available
frequency distribution of challenges of resource sharing
Challenges SA A D SD No Response
(a) Requirement of 76(16.7%) 123(27.0%) 171(37.5%) 75(16.4%) 11(2.4%)
Internet access
(b) Lack of trained 120(26.3%) 87(19.1%) 101(22.1%) 139(30.5%) 9(2.0%)
personnel.
(c) Lack of 106(23.2%) 112(24.6%) 145(31.8%) 78(17.1%) 15(3.3%)
awareness
(d) Insufficient 82(18.0%) 91(20.0%) 139(30.5%) 126(27.6%) 18(3.9%)
funding
(e) Few or inadequate 188(41.2%) 132(28.9%) 60(13.2%) 46(10.1%) 30(6.6%)
ICT infrastructure
(f) Lack of adequate 169(37.1%) 126(27.6%) 89(19.5%) 47(10.3%) 25(5.5%)
resources to share
(g) Environmental 148(32.5%) 134(29.4%) 88(19.3%) 55(12.1%) 31(6.8%)
Distances
(h) Submissive 168(36.8%) 123(27.0%) 82(18.0%) 50(11.0%) 33(7.2%)
nature of participating
libraries

frequency distribution of method used

Questions SA A D SD No Response
Telephone 104(22.8%) 100(21.9%) 120(26.3%) 106(23.2%) 26(5.7%)
Internet connectivity 123(27.0%) 115(25.2%) 135(29.6%) 52(11.4) 31(6.8%)
Photocopiers or 139(30.5%) 100(21.9%) 57(12.5%) 114(31.5%) 16(3.5%)
printers
Fax 95(20.8%) 132(28.9%) 106(23.2%) 113(24.8%) 10(2.2%)

frequency distribution of services provided by the library

Questions SA A D SD No Response
Interlibrary lending 81(17.8%) 85(18.6%) 116(25.4%) 159(34.9%) 15(3.3%)
Document delivery 75(16.4%) 91(20.0%) 126(27.6%) 154(33.8%) 10(2.2%)
Shared thesis 89(19.5%) 85(18.6%) 123(27.0%) 151(33.1%) 8(1.8%)
collection
Selective 88(19.3%) 77(16.9%) 158(34.6%) 114(25.0%) 19(4.2%)
dissemination of
information
Shared cataloguing 75(16.4%) 122(26.8%) 120(26.3%) 126(27.6) 13(2.9%)
Joint acquisitions 91(20.0%) 112(24.6%) 129(28.3%) 116(25.4%) 8(1.8%)
Joint journal 104(22.8%) 101(22.1%) 159(34.9%) 78(17.1%) 14(3.1%)
subscriptions (print &
electronic)

frequency distribution of positive response to question 13 

Questions SA A D SD No Response
(a) Access to electronic 52(11.4%) 63(13.8%) 167(36.6%) 162(35.5%) 12(2.6%)
databases
(b) Cooperative collection 58(12.7%) 100(21.9%) 112(24.6%) 163(35.7%) 23(5.0%)
development
(c) Library interblending 45(9.9%) 110(24.1%) 125(27.4%) 153(33.6%) 23(5.0%)
(d) Linkage of library 90(19.7%) 26(5.7%) 89(19.5%) 239(52.4%) 12(2.6%)
catalogue
(e) Shared cataloguing 80(17.5%) 78(17.1%) 154(33.8%) 122(26.8%) 22(4.8%)
(f) Staff training (e.g. 38(8.3%) 135(29.6%) 197(43.2%) 74(16.2%) 12(2.6%)
workshops, seminars, short
courses, etc.)

frequency distribution of membership to a consortium

Questions SA A D SD No Response
My library is a member 114(25.0%) 74(16.2%) 73(16.0%) 192(42.1%) 3(0.7%)
of the Consortium.

frequency distribution of significant relationship between models 

Questions SA A D SD No Response
16 I think there is any 163(35.7%) 100(21.9%) 117(25.7%) 28(6.1%) 48(10.5%)
specific model used
for resource sharing
and co-operation in
my library.
17 We have a very 131(28.7%) 134(29.4%) 106(23.3%) 37(8.1%) 48(10.5%)
active resource
sharing activities in
the library.
18 Our library is 139(30.5%) 184(40.4%) 85(18.6%) 29(6.4%) 19(4.2%)
subscribed to
national union list.

frequency distribution of familiarity with library models

 Questions SA A D SD No Response
(a)Nigerian University Library 207(45.4%) 142(31.1%) 48(10.5%) 15(3.3%) 44(9.6%)
Consortium (NULIC)
(b)Nigerian University 138(30.3%) 171(37.5%) 92(20.2%) 28(6.1%) 27(5.9%)
Networks (NUNET)
(c) Nigerian Periodical Index 171(37.5%) 131(28.7%) 61(13.4%) 32(7.0%) 61(13.4%)
(NPI)
(d)National Documentation and 157(34.4%) 107(23.5%) 108(23.7%) 36(7.9%) 48(10.5%)
Library Centre for Science and
Technology (NADICEST)
(e)National Union Catalogue 155(34.0%) 175(38.4%) 67(14.7%) 25(5.5%) 34(7.5%)
(NUC)
(f)National Union of Serials 125(27.4%) 148(32.5%) 104(22.8%) 32(7.0%) 47(10.3%)
(NULOS)

frequency distribution of services provided by libraries 

Questions SA A D SD
Staff exchanges 138(30.3%) 136(29.8%) 77(16.9%) 88(19.3%)
Technical expertise 68(14.9%) 253(55.5%) 77(16.9%) 43(9.4%)
Education 121(26.5%) 115(25.2%) 93(20.4%) 104(22.8%)
Training 102(22.4%) 173(37.9%) 70(15.4%) 97(21.3%)

frequency distribution of types of material mostly shared

Questions SA A D SD No response

21 We do send our library 130(28.5%) 141(30.9%) 143(31.4%) 37(8.1%) 5(1.1%)

holdings to a centralized
national database for
compilation in the national
bibliography.
22 We handle items obtained 142(31.1%) 151(33.1%) 113(24.8%) 39(8.6%) 11(2.4%)
through sharing differently.

frequency distribution of material mostly found in libraries

Questions SA A D SD No response
A) Audio visual 103(22.6%) 130(28.5%) 159(34.9%) 40(8.8%) 24(5.3%)
b) Books 127(27.9%) 143(31.4%) 68(14.9%) 105(23.0%) 13(2.95)
c) Magazines 186(40.8%) 139(30.5%) 68(14.9%) 56(12.3%) 7(1.5%)
d)Reference 159(34.9%) 169(37.1%) 50(11.0%) 55(12.1%) 23(5.0%)
Materials
f) E-books 97(21.3%) 162(35.5%) 109(23.9%) 79(17.3%) 9(2.0%)
g) Dissertations 83(18.2%) 128(28.1%) 96(21.1%) 141(30.9%) 8(1.8%)
h) Arts collections 149(32.7%) 129(28.3%) 91(20.0%) 77(16.9%) 10(2.2%)
i) Projectors 111(24.3%) 235(51.5%) 50(11.0%) 51(11.2%) 9(2.0%)
j) Computers 112(24.6%) 178(39.0%) 42(9.2%) 112(24.6%) 12(2.6%)
k) Printers 127(27.9%) 187(41.0%) 106(23.2%) 28(6.1%) 8(1.8%)
l) 3-d printers 105(23.0%) 135(29.6%) 145(31.8%) 66(14.5%) 5(1.1%)
m) Telephone 139(30.5%) 141(30.9%) 107(23.5%) 65(14.3%) 4(0.9%)

frequency distribution of material mostly in libraries

Questions SA A D SD No response
(a) Books 164(36.0%) 190(41.7%) 81(17.8%) 15(3.3%) 6(1.3%)
(b) Audio visuals 57(12.5%) 61(13.4%) 109(23.9%) 221(48.5%) 8(1.8%)
(c) 3-d printers 45(9.9%) 90(19.7%) 212(46.5%) 97(21.3%) 12(2.6%)
(d) Periodicals 66(14.5%) 67(14.7%) 207(45.4%) 112(24.6%) 4(0.9%)
(e)Reference 137(30.0%) 185(40.6%) 49(10.7%) 74(16.2%) 11(2.4)
materials
(f) e-books 133(29.2%) 215(47.1%) 50(11.0%) 39(8.6%) 19(4.2%)

frequency distribution of the period it takes to obtain materials 

Questions SA A D SD No response
(a) A day 181(39.7%) 164(36.0%) 47(10.3%) 60(13.2%) 4(0.9%)
(b) Week 115(25.2%) 151(33.1%) 64(14.0%) 112(24.6%) 14(3.1%)
(c) Month 125(27.4%) 142(31.1%) 77(16.9%) 102(22.4%) 10(2.2%)
(d) Year 105(23.0%) 143(31.4%) 79(17.3%) 118(25.9%) 11(2.4%)

Summary of Findings
Having presented all the results including main and moderating effects in proceeding above,
below summarizes the results of all hypotheses tested.
H1. The study established that almost half of the library personnel strongly agreed that writing a
memorandum of understanding among libraries could help in resource sharing. Less than half of
the library personnel agreed that they think that copyright issues affect the interlibrary loan. More
than one-quarter of the library personnel strongly agreed that there is a national information policy
that has supported the legal agreement. More than one-quarter of the library personnel strongly
agreed that they have a full understanding of what policy framework is. Many of the library
personnel agreed that the introduction of the policy framework could promote resource sharing
activities in the library.
H2. The study discovered that less than half of the library personnel strongly agreed that there is
written policy on resource sharing activities in the library. More than one-quarter of the library
personnel strongly agreed that they think written policy on resource sharing is necessary for
Libraries. More than one-quarter of the library personnel strongly agreed that they think a library
staff competency affects handling resource sharing activities. 
 I. The findings revealed that more than one-quarter of the library personnel strongly agreed
that the physical condition of materials gets deteriorated. More than one-quarter of the
library personnel agreed that Materials are not returned on time. And few of the library
personnel strongly disagreed that Materials required are sometimes not available. 
II. The study revealed that more than one-quarter of the library personnel disagree that
Requirement of Internet access is their main challenge. Less than half of the library
personnel strongly disagree that Lack of trained personnel is their main challenge. Less
than half of the library personnel disagree that Lack of trained personnel is their main
challenge.
III. The study established that less than quarter of the library personnel strongly disagrees with
the telephone as a method they used in providing information and kinds of literature to
library users. More than a quarter of the library personnel disagree with Internet
connectivity as a method they used in providing information and kinds of literature to
library users. More than a quarter of the library personnel strongly agree with
Photocopiers/printers as a method they used in providing information and kinds of
literature to library users. More than a quarter of the library personnel agree with Fax as a
method they used in providing information and kinds of literature to library users. 
IV. Many of the library personnel strongly disagree that their library provides Document
delivery services. Many of the library personnel strongly disagree that their library
provides Shared thesis collection services. Many of the library personnel disagree
that their library provides Selective dissemination of information services. More than a
quarter of the library personnel strongly disagree that their library provides shared
cataloguing services. More than one-quarter of the library personnel disagree that their
library provides Joint acquisitions services. More than a quarter of the library personnel
disagree that their library provides Joint journal subscriptions (print & electronic)
services. 
V. In response to the cooperation between the universities libraries studied, the study revealed
that less than half strongly disagreed that their library is a member of the Consortium. Less
than a quarter of the library personnel agreed with Access to electronic databases as their
benefit of being part of the consortium. Less than a quarter of the library personnel agreed
with Cooperative collection development as their benefit of being part of the consortium,
among others.
Conclusion
 1. Sharing of library resources is a type of library cooperation, where every participating
libraries share their unused and sometimes their valuable resources with one another.
2. Even though there have been many efforts that have been initiated to fuel information
resource sharing activities in the country, these initiatives have not born much fruit in
improving information resources sharing activities among university libraries in the north-
eastern zone of Nigeria.
3. Determined efforts are therefore mandatory by the libraries in supporting and embracing
information resourcing sharing especially in this era of ICTs for quality service delivery.
4. Embracing these initiatives and developing meaningful collaborations can go a long way
in improving the role of information resource sharing and provision of local and
international publications in north-east university libraries in Nigeria.
5. There is willingness by international organizations/universities to share information
resources with universities in developing countries thus improving library collections and
value of information resources available to both staff and students.
Practical Implications of the Thesis
1. This research work was the first study carried out on a broader analysis of library resource
sharing activities in North-eastern university libraries in Nigeria.
2. It is a contribution to literature in respect to resource sharing activities in libraries.
3. It is an invitation to performance of qualitative research.
4. The study identified several obstacles that needed to be resolved.
5. It create awareness on importance of resource sharing.
6. It has brought several issues that require further research that would provide an in-depth
understanding of the critical issues to library resource sharing among university libraries in
North-eastern Nigeria.
 Reference
Abdus. S. (1997). Problems and Prospects of New Technologies in Libraries
and Information Services of Bangladesh, a PhD Thesis. Dept. Lib. Inform. Sci. Dhaka:
University of Dhaka, 2(9): 97-110.
Adesanya, 0. (2002). The Impact of Information Technology on Information Dissemination. In
E.C. Madu, and M. B. Dirisu. (Eds). Information Science and Technology for Library
Schools in Africa. Ibadan. Evi: Colman Publications.
Ahmad, Rafiq. (1997). Organization of a Special Reference Library with Resource-Sharing
Network at Local, Regional, National and International Levels. PLA Journal, (19-20),
23-35.
Aina LO (2001). Resource Sharing and Serials Acquisition in African University Libraries
Adopted of New Strategies
Aina, L. O. (2002). Research in Information Services: an African Perceptive. Ibadan:Stirling
Hordon Publishers.
Agboola, A.T (2003). Information Technology Potential for Interlibrary Loan Cooperation. Lagos
Journal of Library and Information Science 1 (2):106-112.
American Libraryy Association (2006). Guidelines for University Library Services to
Undergraduate Students. Chicago: ALA.
De Kock, M.G (1997). an Information Technology Infrastructure for Source of Sharing in South
African Academic Information Services. Dlitt Phil Thesis, Rands Afrikaans University,
Johannesburg. 206p.
Dougherty. R. M. And Hughes, C. (1991) Preferred Futures for Libraries. California Research
Group.
Edwards H. M. (1994). Library Cooperation and Resources Sharing in South Africa:
Considerations for the Future. South African Journal of Library and Information Science.
62 (2): 113-116.
Ejedafiru, E.F. (2011). Resource Sharing Activities in Academic Libraries Services: Results of A
Survey 2 (1). 85 – 93.
Ejedafiru, E.F. (2003). The Impact of Resource Sharing on Academic Libraries Services.
Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria. P. 129.
Ekuoye, O. (2002). Taking Advantage of Interlibrary Leading/Library Cooperative Among
Private Law Firm Libraries in Nigeria. The Role of the Libraries. Nigeria Libraries. 34(2).
P 22-25.
Etim, F.E. (2006). Resource Sharing in the Digital Age: Prospects and Problems in African
Universities. Library Philosophy and Practice 9(1).Available:
Http://Unllib.Edu/LPP/Etim.Htm
Gang, D.Z. (1980). Towards a Widen Library Resource Sharing. International Library Review. 12
(1) Pp. 3-6.
Ikem, J.E., Nwalo, K.I.N. (2000). Prospects for Resource Sharing Among University Libraries in
Nigeria. In A.A Alemna (Ed.). Proceedings of SCAULWA 2001 Conference, Gimpa,
Accra, Ghana:21-48.
Jalloh, B. (1999). Library Networking and Consortia Initiatives in Africa. African Journal of
Library, Archives and Information Science 9 (1):116.
Laminkanra, U. (2003). Information Technology and the Administration of Justice: The
Foreground. Lagos Journal of Library and Information Science 1 (1): 142-151.
Martey, A.K. (2002). Building Consortia in Nigeria and Senegal: Learning from the Ghana
Experience. SCALNULWA News Letter 3 (1):44-60.
Nwalo, K.I.N. (2000). Collaboration in the Provision and Utilization of IT Facilities for Library
and Information Science Education in Nigeria. In Papers Presented at the 10th
Biennial Conference of NALISE : 42-49.
Omekwu, C.O. (2006). Managing Information and Technology: Critical Roles for Librarians in
Developing Countries. Electronic Library.24 (6), Pp.847 – 863.
Rosenberg, D. (1993).Resource Sharing: is it the Answer for Africa? African Journal of Library,
Archives, and Information Science 3 (2): 107-112.
Sangal, D.G. (1984). Proposal for Resource Sharing Among Libraries in Nigeria. Nigeria
Libraries 20: 129-135.
Sahoo, B.B (N.D). Need for a National Resource Sharing in India: Proposed Model.
Available:Http://Dtc.Isibang.Ac.In:8080/Xmlui/Beatstream/Hande /1849/20/Paper Internet
Speirs, M. (2006). Resource Sharing in Digital Age. Presented at 44th Annual Conference and
AGM of The Nigerian Library Association, Abuja. June 18- 23. P.54.
Tanvir, A. (N.D). Need for Resources Sharing and Networking of Libraries. Available:
Http/Www.Parc.Gov.Pk/Articles/Resource Sharing.Html
Ubogu, F.N., Etel. (1992). Library Networks And Resource Sharing In Nigeria. African Journal
of Library, Archives, and Information Science 2 (2): 99-110
Waiganjo, W.J. (2006). The Camel Come At Age: Academic and Public Libraries Partnership in
Sharing Information through Technology in Kenya: The Role of the African Virtual
Library Project. Available: Http://Www.Ala.Orglal/Iro/Iroactuties/Camel
%20comesofage.Htm
Walden, B.L. (1999). Resource Sharing Among North American Libraries, Past, Present and
Future: A Model for Experts? Available:
Http://Www.Stub.Uni.Frankfurt.De/Messe/Proceedings/Walden/Htm