D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0

Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 1 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 HORIZON-CL2-2021 HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 LibrarIN [101061516]: Value Co-creation and Social Innovation for a new Generation of European Libraries D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Project Reference No LibrarIN -101061516 Deliverable D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Work package WP3: Thematic and empirical work in selected co-creation areas Type R – Document, report Dissemination Level PU – Public Date 31/10/2023 Status Final v1.0 Editor(s) Ines Mergel (UKON), Ali A. Guenduez (UKON), Giulia Maragno (UKON) Contributor(s) Anna-Lea Schumann (UKON), Justus Kühler (UKON), Lina Schmidt (UKON), Nike Helmerich (UKON) Reviewer(s) Lars Fuglsang (RUC) Document description This document includes version 1 of deliverable 3.1 “Digital transformation and ICT” of Work Package 3 which reports the results of expert interviews with professional library associations and the review of the literature on the digital transformation of libraries. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 2 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Disclaimer The LibrarIN project is funded by the European Union under grant agreement ID 101061516. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 3 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Document Revision History Version Date Modifications Introduced Modification Reason Modified by V0.1 17/09/2023 Write up of the initial version of the report UKON V0.2 25/09/2023 Reviewed document RUC V0.3 12/10/2023 Final draft including comments from reviewers UKON V1.0 31/10/2023 Final version for submission to EC ATC Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 4 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Executive Summary Digital transformation approaches to libraries are well underway. They are initiated as part of the changing landscape of available technologies, but the change in patrons’ behavior on how to access information. These changes are, in turn, raising the expectations of libraries’ ability to fulfill their mission to contribute to the democratization of knowledge. They are also leading to the expansion of the types of services libraries offer, how libraries collaborate with other actors to offer cultural programs and, subsequently, how physical library buildings are used. This report presents first the insights derived from a systematic literature review of the current literature (2013-2023) on digital library services. Using the PRISMA scheme, the goal is to understand the existing landscape of empirical evidence for the digital transformation of libraries. To analyze the resulting 354 articles, we used the structural modeling approach (STM) that helped us to cluster the topics into several dominant themes. The results show that digital transformation in libraries has been addressed in the existing literature according to the following 17 topics (Table A): Table A: List of the 17 identified Topics based on the results of the STM analysis List of Topics Topic 1 – National cultural development toward SDGs implementation Topic 10 – Usability and accessibility of eservices Topic 2 – Electronic Library Services Topic 11 – Digital literacy and training in Academic Libraries Topic 3 – Digital skill and literacy development Topic 12 – Creating digital repositories Topic 4 – Funding of Research Innovation in European Union Topic 13 – Social media use Topic 5 – Intention to use digital library services Topic 14 – Libraries as social hubs Topic 6 – Digital skills development of librarians Topic 15 – Access and inclusion of eGovernment services Topic 7 – Adapting to new requirements Topic 16 – Openness policies Topic 8 – Online cataloguing Topic 17 – Users´ data management Topic 9 – Usage of e-books and e-resources The review of the existing literature helps us understand how the digital transformation of libraries has been discussed in the past. In order to look into the future and contribute to the ongoing digital transformation efforts with our project, we also need to understand the current and future challenges libraries are facing while they are digitally transforming their services. Therefore, we derived a semi-structured interview guide from the systematic literature review as the basis for nine interviews conducted with international library experts. The interview themes focus on topics such as the reasons for the digital transformation of libraries, necessary prerequisites, including competencies of librarians and patrons, the way that they co-create these digital innovations with their stakeholders, as well as the expected outcomes. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 5 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 The analysis of the expert interviews shows that across different library types, the demands for digital transformation in library services are driven by both external and internal reasons, in particular through changes observed in technology and demands from stakeholders. While smaller public libraries struggle with resource deficiencies and the lack of digital competencies among their staff, we observe that large lighthouse projects transform their libraries both in the digital and in the physical space by providing innovative services. Co-creative elements can be discovered in the interactions with other stakeholders to reinvent the physical use of the library buildings, but also with their stakeholders by using for example design thinking approaches to rethink the way and formats in which library services are delivered. Lastly, we used the current and future challenges and aggregated them into themes. In the form of a Delphi study, we asked 42 experts to review these themes and rank them in three rounds by their importance. Our results show that “Library's role in the ecosystem” and “Skills & Mindset” were considered as the most important issues in both the second and third rounds, garnering consistent recognition from the participants. Conversely, “(Lack of) Resources” and “Acquisition” rank at the bottom of the list, showing their lower perceived significance in the context of library concerns. As the phenomenon of digital transformation can be approached from a number of different perspectives, we will be using the Delphi study ranking as the basis for our selection criteria for the year 2 case studies. For Task 3.1 (Digital transformation and ICT), we have decided to focus on two types of case studies: 1) Technological innovations for the digital transformation of libraries, especially the use of Artificial Intelligence, and 2) Innovation processes to co-produce the digital transformation, especially design thinking methods to co-design library services with stakeholders. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 6 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 APPROACH FOR WORK PACKAGE AND RELATION TO OTHER WORK PACKAGES AND DELIVERABLES ......................................... 8 1.3 METHODOLOGY AND STRUCTURE OF THE DELIVERABLE ................................................................................................. 8 2 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING THE PRISMA PROTOCOL ........................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Eligibility criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.2 Information sources ................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.3 Search strategy ......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Selection process ....................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Data collection process .............................................................................................................................. 14 2.1.6 Data items ................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.1.7 Reporting bias assessment ......................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 DATA ANALYSIS USING STRUCTURAL TOPIC MODELING ............................................................................................... 15 2.3 RESULTS OF THE STRUCTURAL TOPIC MODEL (STM) .................................................................................................. 16 2.3.1 Interpretation and Clustering of the Topics .................................................................................................. 16 2.3.2 Time trends ............................................................................................................................................... 19 2.3.3 Topic prevalence ........................................................................................................................................ 20 2.3.4 Topic proportion ......................................................................................................................................... 22 3 EXPERT INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................. 26 3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN OF EXPERT INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................ 26 3.2 RESULTS OF EXPERT INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................. 26 4 DELPHI STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 28 4.1 RESULTS OF THE DELPHI STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 28 5 CASE SELECTION CRITERIA .................................................................................................... 30 5.1 FRAMING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 30 5.2 THE TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION DIMENSION OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ........................... 31 5.3 THE PROCEDURAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: DESIGN THINKING APPROACHES WITHIN LIBRARIES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 33 5.4 RESEARCH PROCESS............................................................................................................................................... 34 5.5 CASE STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 34 5.5.1 Phenomenon-driven case selection criteria .................................................................................................. 35 5.5.2 Methodology-driven case selection criteria .................................................................................................. 35 5.6 OVERVIEW OF SELECTED CASES BASED ON CASE-SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................ 38 6 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................. 39 6.1 ACADEMIC DEBATE ................................................................................................................................................ 39 6.2 CURRENT STATE OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 39 6.3 PRACTICAL RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 40 6.4 CASE SELECTION AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................ 40 APPENDIX A: PRISMA CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX B: LIST OF RECORDS INCLUDED .................................................................................... 46 Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 7 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 65 List of Figures Figure 1: Structural Topic Model by Step Approach ............................................................................ 11 Figure 2: The selection process, based on the PRISMA flow diagram. ................................................ 14 Figure 3: Semantic coherence analysis ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 4: Time trends ......................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 5: Topic prevalence .................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 6: Topic proportion considering Public and Academic Libraries ............................................... 23 Figure 7: Topic proportion considering Document Type .....................................................................25 Figure 8: Case study design choices .................................................................................................... 37 List of Tables Table 1: List of the 17 identified topics based on the results of the STM analysis ................................ 17 Table 2: List of topics grouped into six thematic clusters .................................................................... 17 Table 3: Main trends emerging from the interviews .......................................................................... 26 Table 4: Aggregate themes and related keywords emerging from the expert interviews ................... 27 Table 5: Research-practice gap: digital transformation of libraries ..................................................... 30 Table 6: Summary of case selection criteria ........................................................................................ 37 Table 7: List of possible cases for digital transformation of libraries ................................................... 38 List of Terms and Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition AI Artificial Intelligence DGRL Digital Government Reference Library PI Principal Investigator PRIMSA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses STM Structural Topic Model WP Work Package Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 8 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 1 Introduction This report discusses how the digital transformation of libraries has been debated in the past and presents efforts to identify the current and future challenges that libraries face as they digitally transform their activities. 1.1 Purpose and scope The research of Task 3.1 builds on and contributes to the overall work of Work Package (WP) 3, which aims to empirically investigate the ongoing efforts to co-produce innovative public services in ways that enable the co-creation of value. As the overarching scope of the WP is rather broad and could be deepened from different angles, this research addressed the following research questions: i) what are the topics discussed in the academic debate on digital transformation in libraries to date? ii) what are the most relevant topics practitioners are dealing with in their daily work? Based on the answers to these questions, we defined the empirical cases and the research process to investigate them over the next few years. 1.2 Approach for work package and relation to other work packages and deliverables This first version of Task 3.1 took an exploratory approach that focused a) on understanding what the types of themes and topics were already covered in the literature on the digital transformation of libraries is; and b) on exploring from expert interviews what the current and future challenges of the digital transformation of libraries is. This approach allows us to work both on theoretically as well as practically relevant issues so that we work on issues that are relevant for library practitioners and we can at the same time contribute innovative knowledge to theory. 1.3 Methodology and structure of the deliverable The objectives outlined in the previous points are multiple and they have been investigated using different methodologies. First, to understand the history of empirical evidence on the digital transformation of libraries, a systematic literature review was conducted, and data were analyzed through the Structural Modeling Approach (STM). Second, nine interviews with international library experts were conducted to disentangle the current and future challenges libraries face in addressing the digital transformation of their institution and their services. Finally, a Delphi study was conducted to identify the most relevant issues for practitioners and to prioritize future challenge. The report is divided into five parts. The first discusses the methodology used to map the current debate on digital innovation within the empirical context of libraries. Based on the systematic literature review and the STM analysis, this section sheds light on the topics discussed in the current academic literature. The second part, informed by the results of the literature review, refines our understanding of the needs of library practitioners through a set of expert interviews. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 9 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Combining the results of the literature review with the data emerged from the empirical analysis, the third part offers some reflections on the practical relevance of the themes identified, based on the Delphi study. The fourth part presents the criteria identified for the selection of the cases to be investigated in the remaining years of the project. The final section is a summary of the main findings of this report and an outline of the next steps. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 16 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Figure 3: Semantic coherence analysis The figure shows the relationship between the number of topics (k) and their semantic coherence. Semantic coherence is a measure of how well the topics can be interpreted and differentiated from each other. However, there is a trade-off between high semantic coherence and specificity. As the number of topics decreases, semantic coherence increases. The topics become more general and less specific. Conversely, as the number of topics increases, the topics become more specific. The semantic coherence decreases, which often makes it difficult to distinguish between the topics. The determination of the optimal number of topics is not a simple task. There is no “right” or “wrong” number of topics. The appropriate number of topics depends on the specific research objective. In our study, we wanted to find topics that were as specific, coherent, and clearly distinguishable as possible. We evaluated models with different topic models, including 4, 7, 9, 13, 17, 20, 29 and 35 topics. We qualitatively assessed the output of each topic model, including the top words, word clouds, and representative research articles. We found that the model with 17 topics produced the most appropriate for our study. 2.3 Results of the Structural Topic Model (STM) In the following, we briefly describe the results by highlighting the topics we identified, the time trends, topic prevalence, and the topic proportion between public and academic libraries. 2.3.1 Interpretation and Clustering of the Topics The STM analysis provides a variety of outputs to interpret and describe the topics, including top words (words with the highest probability of association with the topic, as well as the most frequent and exclusive words), word clouds representing the most important words and their frequency in the context of the topic, and representative texts containing the relevant top words and closely linked to the topic (Roberts et al., 2019). Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 17 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 To describe and label the topics, we used the following procedure: first, we processed the top words, word clouds, and representative studies individually and, based on this, described and labeled the topics. In subsequent meetings, we discussed our interpretations of each topic. In case of disagreement, we discussed different interpretations by considering and discussing the top words, word clouds, and analyzed additional representative studies to better understand how the top words were used and what topics they formed in these studies. Based on our findings, we adjusted our descriptions and labels accordingly. We repeated this process for each topic until agreement was reached. This way, we identified 17 different topics and labeled them based on the results of the STM analysis, as reported in Table 1. Table 1: List of the 17 identified topics based on the results of the STM analysis List of Topics Topic 1 – National cultural development toward SDGs implementation Topic 10 – Usability and accessibility of eservices Topic 2 – Electronic Library Services Topic 11 – Digital literacy and training in Academic Libraries Topic 3 – Digital skill and literacy development Topic 12 – Creating digital repositories Topic 4 – Funding of Research Innovation in European Union Topic 13 – Use of social media Topic 5 – Intention to use digital library services Topic 14 – Libraries as social hubs Topic 6 – Digital skills development of librarians Topic 15 – Access and inclusion of eGovernment services Topic 7 – Adapting to new requirements Topic 16 – Openness policies Topic 8 – Online cataloguing Topic 17 – Users´ data management Topic 9 – Usage of e-books and e-resources In a next analysis step, we grouped the 17 topics into six thematic clusters based on their shared thematic content to be able to identify the gap between the published research and current practices and challenges that the experts reported during the interviews. The clusters and their corresponding underlying topics are depicted in Table 2. Table 2: List of topics grouped into six thematic clusters List of Topics Second level Third level Topic 1 – National cultural development toward SDGs implementation National cultural development toward SDGs implementation Policies and strategies for development (on national and supranational level) Topic 4 – Funding of Research Innovation in European Union Funding of Research Innovation in European Union Topic 16 – Openness policies Openness policies Topic 2 – Electronic Library Services E-services access User centricity in e-services Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 18 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 List of Topics Second level Third level Topic 9 – Usage of e-books and e-resources Topic 5 – Intention to use digital library services Intention to use digital library services Topic 10 – Usability and accessibility of e-services Usability and accessibility of eservices Topic 17 – Users´ data management Users´ data management Topic 7 – Adapting to new requirements Adapting to new requirements Adapting to new requirements Topic 3 – Digital skill and literacy development Digital skills and literacy Digital skills and literacy Topic 6 – Digital skills development of librarians Topic 11 – Digital literacy and training in Academic Libraries Topic 13 – Use of social media Social inclusion and interaction Social inclusion and interaction Topic 14 – Libraries as social hubs Topic 15 – Access and inclusion of e-Government services Topic 8 – Online cataloguing Online cataloguing Building digital infrastructure Topic 12 – Creating digital repositories Creating digital repositories The six clusters we identified relate to the development and use of digital technologies in libraries. These clusters are:  Policies and strategies for development (on national and supranational levels), grouping studies mainly related to the implementation of national cultural development towards the achievement of specific SDGs and the enforcement of frameworks and policies, also at the European level.  User centricity in e-services, grouping together articles dealing with the use of library services – particularly digital ones – by different stakeholders and the accessibility features of the above services.  Adapting to new requirements, which brings together articles that explore organizational change in libraries, such as the introduction of project management, trends in changing service provision or the changing work of librarians.  Digital skills and literacy, which brings together studies on the state of the art and the need to increase digital skills and literacy, both for librarians and for users.  Social inclusion and interaction, which brings together articles relating to the social sphere and the role of libraries, both in the physical world and in the online world. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 19 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02  Building digital infrastructure, grouping articles outlining the need to build a proper (digital) infrastructure. 2.3.2 Time trends The STM analysis enables us to determine the temporal evolution of the identified topics based on the publication year of the documents and the respective prominence of the topics in the corresponding publications. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 4. The results show that many topics are relatively stable over time (i.e., Topic 13 – Use of social media). Looking more closely at the different topics, some of them show a slight fluctuation during the period analyzed. Indeed, some of them show an increase in the popularity of the studies, which is gradual for some topics (i.e., Topic 1 – National cultural development toward SDGs implementation and Topic 4 – Funding of Research Innovation in European Union), while more pronounced for others (i.e., Topic 2 – Electronic Library Services and Topic 3 – Digital skill and literacy development, Topic 17 – Users´ data management). Others, on the other hand, show a downward trend in recent years, indicating a partial decrease in popularity (i.e., Topic 7 – Adapting to new requirements, Topic 8 – Online cataloging, Topic 9 – Usage of e-books and e-resources). In addition, other topics (i.e., Topic 5 – Intention to use digital library services and Topic 6 – Digital skills development of librarians) although showing modest waves over the years, are growing again in the last period, demonstrating their centrality to the interests of the research community. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 20 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Figure 4: Time trends 2.3.3 Topic prevalence To increase our understanding of the main characteristics of the sample of selected articles, we interpreted the results of the STM analysis, which also provides information on the prevalence. The topic prevalence is a measure of how prominent a topic is in a document. The prevalence is measured by how frequently a topic appears in a document. It can be calculated at the level of a single document or the complete data set with all documents. The basis for calculation is the proportion of words in the document that are assigned to a given topic. It appears that the dominant topic in the academic Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 21 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 discussion is Topic 15 (Access and inclusion of e-gov services), closely followed by Topic 7 (Adapting to new requirements). This means that the articles in the sample often address the role of libraries as facilitators of access and inclusion in e-government services (Topic 15), and also point to the urgency for libraries to address the changes that digital technologies have brought about in organizational structures, service provision and works (Topic 7). Figure 5 shows the prevalence of the 17 topics in descending order and the top words for each topic. Figure 5: Topic prevalence Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 22 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 2.3.4 Topic proportion STM allows the inclusion of document-level metadata as a covariate in the analysis. This allows to explore the relationships between the covariate and the identified topics. In this study, we included library type, i.e., “public library” and “academic library” as a covariate in the analyses to explore the correlation between the topics and the empirical context. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 6. The analysis reveals several correlations: some topics, such as Topic 1– National cultural development toward SDGs implementation, Topic 3 – Digital skill and literacy development, Topic 13 – Use of social media, Topic 14 – Libraries as social hubs and Topic 15 – Access and inclusion of eGovernment services, are strongly associated with public libraries. Topics like Topic 6 – Digital skills development of librarians, Topic 7 – Adapting to new requirements, Topic 10 – Usability and accessibility of e-services, and Topic 11 – Digital literacy and training in Academic Libraries is stronger associated with academic libraries. For other topics, such as Topic 2 – Electronic Library Services, Topic 4 – Funding of Research Innovation in European Union, Topic 8 – Online cataloguing and Topic 17 – Users´ data management, there are no significant differences. In conclusion, we can see that the stimuli and challenges brought about by digital technologies affect both public and academic libraries. However, some issues can be explored in more depth by library type. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 23 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 More public library… More Academic library Figure 6: Topic proportion considering Public and Academic Libraries Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 24 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 In this analysis, document type, i.e., whether reports or scientific articles are used, was also included as a covariate in this analysis. This covariance analysis, as Figure 7 illustrates, allows us to determine which topics are more or less addressed in the two document types. The results show that Topic 1 – SDGs implementation, Topic 4 – EU research innovation funding, and Topic 16 – Openness are addressed significantly more in the reports. In contrast, electronic library services (Topic 2) and data skills development (Topic 6) are addressed significantly more often in scientific publications. For all other topics, we find trends. The majority of the remaining topics are covered predominantly in research articles, with the exception of Topic 15, which tends to be covered more in reports. However, these differences are not significant. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 25 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Figure 7: Topic proportion considering Document Type Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 32 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 with AI and the results could be scaled up to other public service domains, making it increasingly relevant to investigate the phenomenon in this empirical context. Specifically, in the words of one of the experts: “libraries have much to contribute to the development of AI data, content, and expertise. […] We should as libraries use our position and that position is that all around the world, we are seen as trusted and ethical source of data/of content. […] Not only on the technical side, but especially on the moral side as well. If you do it the right way, you can be a frontrunner in AI development”. And this concept was underlined by another non-European informant, who pointed out that “we [= libraries] can be an entry point for these things”. However, despite the increased attention from libraries, the research relating AI to the empirical context has only emerged in recent years (Hervieux & Wheatley, 2021), even though scholars are also increasingly recognizing the urgency of expanding academic research and “knowledge sharing from practitioners” (Tait & Pierson, 2022, p. 258). Moreover, the results of an environmental scan of AI policies implemented by European Member States show that few strategies address how the technology is being developed in the library context, mirroring the scattered scenario presented by (Bradley, 2022). In fact, although the majority of Member States already have an AI strategy (see for an overview (Raquel et al., 2022)), only six Countries address the library context. Furthermore, to check how the issue is being addressed by practitioners, we looked for national library strategies. The results here are twofold: on the one hand, few Countries have a specific strategy for their libraries (such as for instance Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Slovakia or Spain), but on the other hand, few of them discuss AI in their pages. This lack of attention to the rise of AI is confirmed by a study of university libraries in the US and Canada, where the authors found that none of the 25 libraries, they selected were addressing AI issues in their strategic plans (Wheatley & Hervieux, 2019). Thus, notwithstanding the hype and the role they could play for society as a whole in leading the development of AI, libraries still need to better understand this multifaceted phenomenon in order to exploit its potential, but also to learn how to coexist with it (Gasparini & Kautonen, 2022). As in other domains, discussions about AI development include the potential for this set of technologies to transform or eventually take over human jobs (see, for instance, (Arlitsch & Newell, 2017)), which also brings into focus the roles and skills needed to interact with these machines. Other studies provide an overview of the applications of AI for libraries (see, for instance, (Hervieux & Wheatley, 2022; Kaushal & Yadav, 2022)), that are increasingly shaping libraries and information services (Luca et al., 2022). Starting from these premises, it seems important to dive deeper into the implementation and usage of AI within libraries: indeed, “librarians are there to perform set tasks that until now could not be done by machines” (Calvert, 2017, p. 171). Therefore, investigating how AI applications are interwoven with organizational processes and services is crucial to better unpack the many facets of the phenomenon. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 33 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 5.3 The procedural and methodological aspects of digital transformation: design thinking approaches within libraries Since we live in a VUCA (short for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) and wicked problems are all around us, libraries are a breeding ground for explicit and implicit knowledge management, helping us to thrive in our information and knowledge society (Dresel et al., 2020; Loh et al., 2021; Pandey, 2016). Their traditional role as a physical place for public access to information and knowledge has progressively changed and the involvement of patrons in the development of new services become more and more important (Bech-Petersen, 2020; Bilandzic & Johnson, 2013; Decker, 2020; Passehl-Stoddart & Snipes, 2020; Whang et al., 2017). In this scenario, design thinking as a human-centered approach, holds the premises to help libraries and librarians to reflect on and improve their products and services (Clarke et al., 2020). Notwithstanding these premises, there is no common definition of design thinking within the selected empirical domain: when discussing design thinking for libraries, the IDEO Design Thinking Toolkit for Libraries is often mentioned (IDEO, 2015), which describes design thinking as a deeply empathic and intuitive process consisting of three phases: inspiration, ideation, and iteration (IDEO, 2015). Other authors (Clarke et al., 2020; Loh et al., 2021; Whang et al., 2017) describe this approach as a holistic, iterative process that considers the needs and experiences of patrons. Through ongoing engagement with patrons, design thinking enables librarians to develop empathy with their constellation of stakeholders and cultivate an openness to innovation and transformation (IDEO, 2015; Whang et al., 2017). For the sake of clarity, this report defines design thinking in libraries as above. This fragmented picture is also reflected in the current academic debate on the subject. Design thinking in libraries has been studied much more rigorously in academic libraries than it has been in public libraries. In an online survey conducted in 2018, over 60% of the US librarian participants reported being somewhat familiar or very familiar with design thinking (Clarke et al., 2020), and 27% of the respondents were actively using design thinking and methods in their libraries (Clarke et al., 2020). However, Pandey (2016) mentioned that design thinking toolkits are often too abstract and this also implies the need to integrate such methodologies into librarians' training (Clarke & Bell, 2018), calling for a new model of library education that focuses more on design thinking approaches, learning by doing, and lifelong learning (Clarke & Bell, 2018, 2021). In spite of all this, libraries are not standing still. Examples of design thinking being applied in libraries are the Chicago Public Library (CPL) and the Aarhus Public Library (Bech-Petersen, 2020; Dindler et al., 2016; IDEO, 2015). Specifically, the latter has been described as “a library for people – not for books” and as an “ongoing prototype” (Bech-Petersen, 2020, p. 7). Both libraries were part of the development of the IDEO Design Thinking Toolkit for Libraries and used design thinking to address mainly two themes: digitalization, and families and children (Dindler et al., 2016; IDEO, 2015). Besides these two lighthouses, design thinking is often used to redesign the library service models, such as at the Hillsboro Public Library (Chase, 2017), the State Library Victoria (Conyers et al., 2015), or the Ann Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 34 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Arbor Library at the University of Michigan (Haines & Rodgers, 2021). In addition, design thinking enables libraries to create and redesign their physical spaces, such as at the University of Oregon (UO) Libraries (Passehl-Stoddart & Snipes, 2020), the University Library of Hildesheim (Frank & Schrader, 2020), or the University of California Berkeley Library (McGrath, 2016). Design thinking also covers digital transformation and innovation, for instance, the Harvard Business School’s Baker Library used the approach to create digital products to improve course assignments and disseminate electronic faculty research (Dolan et al., 2017). The University of Sydney Library used service design thinking to create a user-centered systematic review service (Luca & Ulyannikova, 2020). A particular focus on the needs and challenges of transfer students through the design thinking approach is being undertaken at the University of Washington (UW) Library (Whang et al., 2017). 5.4 Research process The phenomenon-driven nature of the research has a twofold consequence. On the one hand, as a phenomenon is defined as “regularities that are unexpected, that challenge existing knowledge and that are relevant to scientific discourse”, no scientific theory has enough scope to account for it alone (Von Krogh et al., 2012, p. 278). Therefore, considering that scientific work could be seen as an ongoing dialogue between scholars (Colquitt & George, 2011), the adoption of multiple theoretical lenses at this stage allows us to gain a deeper perspective, disentangle the extant explanations of the phenomenon, and work towards new ones (Piekkari & Welch, 2018). Thus, to start defining “what is this a case of” (Thomas, 2011, p. 515), we combine literature from the fields of public service management, computer science, public management – specifically value creation and co-production – and organization science. The choice of these theoretical lenses was made according to the characteristics of the phenomenon under study, but also in relation to the public service innovation and co-production framework that guides the whole project. It is worth noting that this literature provides us with a preliminary theoretical orientation: novel perspectives may emerge and be considered as the research progresses. This initial familiarity with different theoretical perspectives allows us to avoid entering “the field without any knowledge of prior research” (Suddaby, 2006, p. 634), with the idea of continuously combining the theoretical starting point with the evidence that will emerge in the empirical world (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). 5.5 Case study selection criteria As the overarching aim of the research is to investigate a contemporary phenomenon in depth – digitally transforming libraries – and within its real-world context (Yin, 2018), we utilize the case study approach. The core element of this approach is its focus on the dynamics (Eisenhardt, 1989), with the final aim to shed light on a “large number of details […]. Its concern is not to exclude what it cannot command, but rather to avoid omitting some detail that might turn out to be important in explaining what happened in the situation being studied” (Schramm, 1971, p. 3). Following this statement, Yin (2018, p. 13) mentions as details “individuals, organizations, processes, programs, neighborhoods, institutions and event”, which are central topics in this research. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 35 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 We will therefore adopt criteria that follow the logic of purposeful sampling, that is “selecting information-rich cases for study in depth” (Patton, 1990, p. 169). Specifically, for the AI cases we apply two strategies. First, we rely on snowball sampling: through a series of expert interviews conducted between August and September 2023 with knowledgeable informants in the field (including both library association affiliates as well as library researchers), we seek to build a chain of good cases for study; then, informed by the results of these interviews and through intensity sampling, we aim to find rich examples of AI implementation within libraries, that “manifest the phenomenon intensely, but not extremely” (Patton, 1990, p. 171). When considering design thinking cases instead, we have not yet conducted expert interviews on the topic. The definition of the cases is therefore based on the evidence generated by the literature review, triangulated with secondary data (such as library reports and websites) with the ultimate aim of finding rich examples of the phenomenon (i.e., intensity sampling). The following paragraphs will show the phenomenological and methodological criteria on which we base the investigations of years 2 and 3 of the grant period. 5.5.1 Phenomenon-driven case selection criteria As the research is phenomenon-driven, that is, the specific phenomenon – digitally transforming libraries – drives and shapes the conversation and leads the research to “pay attention to an issue that motivates further exploration” (Schwarz & Stensaker, 2016, p. 246), the process of sampling is also deeply influenced by its ability to harvest the features of the phenomenon under investigation, as well as the key elements relevant to the overarching aims of the research grant. Accordingly, the casing process will focus on libraries which will allow us to investigate: 1. co-production aspects, to explore the involvement of users/patrons, librarians, and other stakeholders in the implementation and use of AI or in the adoption of design thinking approaches; 2. value co-production outcomes, to shed light on the value created for patrons and users through the use of AI and design thinking approaches, and who benefits; 3. any differences in the implementation and use of AI and design thinking approaches between public, national, and academic libraries; 4. innovation outcomes, which includes cases that allow us to distinguish, for example, whether the innovation is for the provision of specific services or for internal process management; and 5. competence creation, thus we will select cases where it will be possible to examine what, if any, new competencies are needed to tackle the implementation of AI or the development of design thinking approaches. 5.5.2 Methodology-driven case selection criteria To frame the boundaries of the phenomenon, we also rely on a series of methodological clarifications necessary to ensure that the selected case has concrete manifestations in practice (Yin, 2018). Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 36 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 These boundary decisions have been defined by triangulating secondary data (such as library and conference websites), the evidence emerging from the academic literature, and, for AI, the data collected through five exploratory interviews with experts in the field, conducted between late August and early September 2023. These boundary decisions are presented below: 1. Time period:  AI: from 2018 onwards. The choice of this year was made because it was the first year of the Fantastic Futures conference, signaling the growing interest of both practitioners and academics;  Design thinking: from 2015 onwards. This year was chosen because it is the year of publication of the IDEO Design Thinking Toolkit for Libraries, and therefore a turning point for the topic in the empirical context studied. The selected cases will be examined in a parallel study, i.e., the cases will be “happening and being studied concurrently” (Thomas, 2011, p. 517). 2. Relevant organization(s): in terms of the context of the research, the focus will be on different types of libraries. Indeed, as one of the experts states “AI is already being discussed in a more practical way in academic and national library environments where there are different approaches, different abilities to use it”. Therefore, academic and national libraries – with their own particularities – seem to be more at the forefront of AI implementation, and thus “where the focal phenomenon is likely to occur” (Eisenhardt, 2021, p. 149). In the same way, public and academic libraries are more involved in experiencing design thinking approaches; 3. Geographical area: the research will be grounded in several countries, both inside and outside Europe. The decision to include these latter countries was taken because US and Canadian libraries were widely mentioned both during the expert interviews and in the literature reviewed. We therefore believe that a priori consideration of only European libraries would hinder a comparison between these different areas, which could instead benefit the whole research and library community; 4. Type of evidence to be collected: the research will draw on multiple sources of data (Gioia et al., 2013). Specifically:  Experts’ interviews, to get a grasp of the situation and to disentangle cases of interest. The experts are selected based on their experience in the field. Since the aim is to obtain the broadest possible perspective on the phenomenon, we decided to include not only European informants, but also experts from other countries, both from national and academic libraries;  Librarian interviews;  Secondary data, such as library reports, strategies, policies, and other relevant documentation;  Field observations within the empirical context, where possible. Once the boundaries of the phenomenon have been defined, the next casing step is to define the nature and design of the case study, choosing between singleor multiple-case studies. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 37 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 In this research, we decided to conduct a multiple-case study, hence a joint study of a few cases. This choice has been made because we believe that once the specificities of each case are unraveled, comparing different cases will help us to better understand the similarities and differences between them (Thomas, 2011) and shed light on what these might tell us about the significant dynamics. The subsequent design decision regards the choice to conduct embedded case studies (Yin, 2018). As Scholz and Tietje (2002, pp. 9-10) pointed out, “embedded case studies involve more than one unit, or object, of analysis [… and] the multiplicity of evidence is investigated at least partly in subunits, which focus on different salient aspects of the case”. As an example, Figure 8, which elaborates on Yin (2018), provides an example of the initial overview of the design choices for AI cases. It is worth noting that at this stage of the research we are not yet able to clearly define the embedded sub-units (Unit of Analysis – UoA), but these smallest units could be library departments or different interest groups that might be affected by the development of AI. Figure 8: Case study design choices Table 6 presents a summary of the case selection criteria for the two cases identified. Table 6: Summary of case selection criteria AI Implementation Design thinking Phenomenon-driven 1. Co-creation and co-production aspects, to explore the involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of AI and design thinking approaches 2. Value creation outcomes, highlighting the value created for librarians, patrons, and users by using AI and design thinking approaches 3. Differences in the implementation and use of AI and design thinking approaches between the various types of libraries 4. Innovation outcomes, which include cases that allow us to distinguish, for example, whether the innovation is for the provision of specific services or for internal process management Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 38 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 5. Competence creation, to examine what, if any, new competences are needed to tackle the implementation of AI or the development of design thinking approaches Methodology-driven Time period 2018-today 2015-today Relevant organization(s) Academic and National Libraries Academic and Public Libraries Geographical area Worldwide Type of evidence Multiple data sources Design choices Multiple-case study Embedded Finally, it is important to underline the epistemological dimension of the research: the approach adopted will be explanatory (Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Yin, 2018). This means that considering the form of the research questions we intend to address (Yin, 2018), the research aims to investigate “why” the phenomenon of digital transformation, in its specific declinations of AI and design thinking approaches, occurs in the library context and “how” it affects the dynamics and the relationships within and outside the libraries´ boundaries, in the logic of value co-creation and co-production. In conclusion, we acknowledge that even if we try to detail the steps of this cognitive journey, the process was and will not be linear, but rather “messy, idiosyncratic and difficult to articulate” (Van Maanen et al., 2007, p. 1149). 5.6 Overview of selected cases based on case-selection criteria Based on our review of the literature and the initial expert interviews, we have identified a first list of potential cases for each of the two case studies on AI implementation and design thinking in libraries (Table 7). Table 7: List of possible cases for digital transformation of libraries Cases for AI implementation Case for designing digital innovation British Library Aarhus Public Library Finland National Library Ann Arbor Library Library of Congress Chicago Public Library National Library of France Harvard Business School’s Baker Library National Library of Sweden Hillsboro Public Library Norway National Library State Library Victoria Royal Danish Library University of California – Berkeley Queen´s University Library University of Oregon Libraries Stanford University Library University of Sydney Library University of Washington Library Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 39 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 6 Conclusion and next steps This report provides a synthesis of the research conducted in Task 3.1 along the first year of the project. This final section highlights the key outcomes of the study, as well as the activities expected for the next years. 6.1 Academic debate The analysis of the 354 articles selected as a sample for the literature review allowed us to identify the most common themes discussed in the academic debate. Specifically, thanks to the application of the STM technique, we grouped them into seventeen themes and then highlighted their main characteristics. Firstly, the different themes were grouped into six clusters according to their thematic content: i) policies and strategies for development, ii) user centricity in e-services, iii) adapting to new requirements, iv) digital skills and literacy, v) social inclusion and interaction, vi) building digital infrastructure. Then, going one step further, the STM analysis allowed us to identify the main characteristics of these groups, focusing on the temporal evolution, the prevalence of the topics as well as their proportion, considering the type of library (i.e., academic or public) as well as the type of document (i.e., reports or scientific articles). In a nutshell, the results showed that many topics are relatively stable over time, that the dominant topic is Access and inclusion of e-government services, that the stimuli of digital transformation affect public and academic libraries differently, and that most topics are covered in scientific articles. 6.2 Current state of digital transformation Building on the results of the literature review, the research also sought to identify the current and future challenges faced by libraries in their day-to-day activities. The experts interviewed placed a strong emphasis on three main themes that can be linked to the key areas covered by the research grant. Specifically, digital transformation was discussed, touching on changes in mission, and processes, but also the interaction between technological artifacts and the materiality of the library and its collection, as well as the role of digital innovation in supporting the digital society. On the other hand, regarding innovation hubs, experts in all the interviews pointed out that libraries could be seen as third spaces for the exchange of ideas and, consequently, as physical hubs connecting research and society. Finally, in relation to the development of networks, informants also emphasized the need to overcome barriers to cooperation with other libraries, and to improve dialogue with different stakeholders. An in-depth analysis of the interviews then suggested a categorization of the themes that emerged across the interviews. Following a similar logic to the literature review, the key issues emerged were Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 40 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 grouped into seven themes: i) openness, ii) library’s role in the ecosystem, iii) skills and attitudes, iv) collaboration, v) library as a third space, vi) (lack of) resources, and vii) acquisition. These findings highlight that the current issues facing libraries go beyond what has been reported in the literature to date, and so there is a need to explore not only where the research fits into the academic debate, but also what the practical relevance of this study can be for the future of libraries. 6.3 Practical relevance of the research Therefore, having identified the open issues in the academic debate, it was also a key task for this research to identify the most pressing issues for library practitioners. Indeed, the comparison of the STM results with the interviews allowed us to identify the gap between research and practice. Then, to consolidate these findings, we asked a group of library experts to review the themes that had emerged from the previous analyses and to rank them in order of importance. The results of the Delphi study enrich the previous findings and suggest that there is a strong need to explore the role of libraries in the ecosystem, i.e., how libraries innovate for and with the community, how they act as intermediaries for public services, as well as issues around knowledge preservation. The Delphi study also highlighted the importance of exploring new forms of collaboration between libraries and other stakeholders, especially patrons and users. 6.4 Case selection and next steps The analyses carried out during this first year suggested that digital transformation could be approached from several angles. We have therefore decided to narrow the focus and identify two cases for investigation: (i) the technological innovation dimension of digital transformation, which will allow us to explore issues such as skills development, co-production of digital transformation and resource provision; and (ii) the procedural and methodological aspects of digital transformation, which will instead provide insights into attitudes and mindsets, but also the role of libraries in the ecosystem and as third spaces for the community. By addressing these topics, we will be able to both contribute new perspectives to the academic debate and offer practical insights to librarians. Specifically, considering the technological dimension, we decided to focus on the development of AI, as this technological artefact is increasingly used in libraries, which are seen as “a crossroads of knowledge, [where] the flexibility of AI as a topic for themed programming, special events, and community outreach is limitless” (Dekker et al., 2022, p. 19). To date, we have already begun to familiarize ourselves with the phenomenon through the implementation and in-depth analysis of national AI strategies and (national) library strategies. Preliminary results show that although most European countries have an AI strategy, few of them address the development of AI in the context of libraries. A series of expert interviews are underway to begin to address the topic and show that libraries: i) are key actors in the development of AI, not only within their own boundaries, but for technological development in society; ii) could help to develop AI literacy within the community; and iii) could also play an advocacy role, including raising ethical awareness of AI. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 41 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Turning then to the procedural dimension, a review of the existing literature revealed that while design thinking approaches are considered crucial in libraries (Clarke et al., 2020), “there is no systematic exposure to this design material across the field of librarianship” (Clarke et al., 2020, p. 751). It therefore seems relevant to explore the issue further to provide more structured evidence for both the academic and practitioner communities. The research over the next few years will therefore be an in-depth study of these phenomena, by means of a case study approach. In fact, the results of the first year of the study have laid the foundations for the methodological and phenomenological criteria on which future research will be based. Informed by these findings, in the second year of the project we will complete the interviews with AI experts and gain an overview of how design thinking approaches are currently being addressed by library professionals and in the literature. Once the groundwork has been laid, the main aim of the research carried out in Task 3.1 will be to finalize the identification of the cases to be studied and to carry out the empirical research together with the consortium partners. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 48 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 36. R. Brian; B. John Carlo; T. J. Paul. 2014. “Rural Public Libraries and Digital Inclusion: Issues and Challenges.” Information Technology and Libraries 37. R. P. Bringula; A. E. Catacutan-Bangit; M. B. Garcia; J. P. S. Gonzales; A. M. C. Valderama. 2022. ““Who is gullible to political disinformation?”: Predicting susceptibility of university students to fake news.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 38. R. Buller. 2017. “Lending Video Game Consoles in an Academic Library.” Portal-Libraries and the Academy. 39. C. Bulock. 2014. “Knowledge and Dignity in the Era of Big Data” Serials Librarian. 40. S. K. Burke. 2016. “Public Library Administration: Transparency on the Website.” Library Quarterly. 41. D. Byrd-McDevitt; J. Dewees. 2022. “Using DPLA and the Wikimedia Foundation to Increase Usage of Digitized Resources.” Information Technology & Libraries. 42. A. Byrne. 2015. “The history of lighthouses.” Australian Library Journal. 43. T. J. Cain; F. M. Cheek; J. Kupsco; L. J. Hartel; A. Getselman. 2016. “Health Sciences Libraries Forecasting Information Service Trends for Researchers: Models Applicable to All Academic Libraries.” College & Research Libraries. 44. G. H. Cao; M. L. Liang; X. G. Li. 2018. “How to make the library smart? The conceptualization of the smart library.” Electronic Library. 45. S. Carnes. 2018. “Investigating Options for Increased Awareness and Use of Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Resources Among Libraries and Librarians (Part One of a Two-Part Series).” Journal of Hospital Librarianship. 46. B. Casselden; R. Pears. 2020. “Higher education student pathways to ebook usage and engagement, and understanding: Highways and cul de sacs.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 47. B. Casselden. 2022. “Not like riding a bike: How public libraries facilitate older people's digital inclusion during the Covid-19 pandemic.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 48. S. Chatterjee; M. Samanta; S. Dey. 2021. “The Role Played by Public Libraries in Promoting Information Literacy and User Education.” IUP Journal of Knowledge Management. 49. H. M. Chen. 2019. “Information visualization skills for academic librarians A content analysis of publications and online LibGuides in the digital humanities.” Library Hi Tech. 50. S. Cherukodan; S. H. Kabir. 2016. “Adoption of DSpace by Indian libraries.” Program-Electronic Library and Information Systems. 51. C. T. Chisita; B. Chiparausha; V. Tsabetse; C. T. Olugbara; M. Letseka. 2022. “Remaking academic library services in Zimbabwe in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 52. N. Choi; J. A. Pruett. 2019. “The context and state of open source software adoption in US academic libraries.” Library Hi Tech. 53. Y. Choi; E. B. Hastings. 2022. “Digital Exhibits for Justice: Analyzing Public Library Digital Exhibits with Diversity and Social Justice Themes.” Public Library Quarterly. 54. R. Cilauro. 2015. “Community building through a public library Minecraft Gaming Day.” Australian Library Journal. 55. L. Clark. 2014. “An Advocate's View on Public Libraries and the Internet Survey.” Library Quarterly. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 49 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 56. M. Comi; S. Smith; W. A. Goettlich; P. Alexander; D. Davidson; W. G. Staples. 2022. “Digital homelessness: Exploring the links between public Internet access, technological capital, and social inequality.” Current Sociology. 57. S. Conrad; C. Stevens. 2019. “Am I on the library website?: A LibGuides Usability Study.” Information Technology & Libraries. 58. M. Cook; Z. Lischer-Katz; N. Hall; J. Hardesty; J. Johnson; R. McDonald; T. Carlisle. 2019. “Challenges and Strategies for Educational Virtual Reality: Results of an Expert-led Forum on 3D/VR Technologies across Academic Institutions.” Information Technology and Libraries. 59. A. M. Cox. 2019. “Learning bodies: Sensory experience in the information commons.” Library & Information Science Research. 60. P. Dadzie; T. van der Walt. 2015. “Access and Use of Digital Resources: A Survey of Their Value for Faculty in Three Ghanaian Universities.” Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies. 61. N. K. Dalmer; D. Sawchuk; M. Ly. 2023. “I felt there was a big chunk taken out of my life": COVID19 and older adults' library-based magazine leisure reading".” Leisure Studies. 62. A. Davis; C. Rice; D. Spagnolo; J. Struck; S. Bull. 2015. “Exploring pop-up libraries in practice.” Australian Library Journal. 63. R. Dean. 2016. “Shutting Down a Consortial Digital Repository Service.” Journal of Library Administration. 64. M. Deja; D. Rak; B. Bell. 2021. “Digital transformation readiness: perspectives on academia and library outcomes in information literacy.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 65. G. Delaney; J. Bates. 2015. “Envisioning the Academic Library: A Reflection on Roles, Relevancy and Relationships.” New Review of Academic Librarianship. 66. K. DeMaagd; H. E. Chew; G. Huang; M. L. Khan; A. Sreenivasan; R. LaRose. 2013. “The use of public computing facilities by library patrons: demography, motivations, and barriers.” Government Information Quarterly. 67. K. Denda; J. Hunter. 2016. “Building 21st Century Skills and Creating Communities: A Team-based Engagement Framework for Student Employment in Academic Libraries.” Journal of Library Administration. 68. B. Desmarais; P. Louderback. 2020. “Planning and Assessing Patron Experience and Needs for an Academic Library Website.” Journal of Library Administration. 69. B. Detlor; H. Julien; T. La Rose; A. Serenko. 2022. “Community-led digital literacy training: Toward a conceptual framework.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70. D.-G. f. R. a. I. European Commission. 2012. “Access to and preservation of scientific information in Europe: report on the implementation of Commission Recommendation C(2012) 4890 final.” European Commission. 71. D.-G. f. R. a. I. European Commission, Keesenberg, R., Tsoukala, V., Barbarossa, E., et al. 2018. “Access to and preservation of scientific information in Europe report on the implementation of Commission recommendation C(2018)2375 final.” European Commission. 72. D.-G. f. R. a. I. European Commission, Hermerén, G., Zwart, H., Marušić, A., et al. 2020. “Mutual learning exercise on research integrity. Final report.” European Commission. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 50 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 73. D.-G. f. R. a. I. European Commission. 2023. “Mutual learning exercise on the whole of government approach in research and innovation: first thematic report: introduction and overview of the whole of government approaches in research and innovation.” European Commission. 74. D.-G. f. R. a. I. European Commission. 2023. “Evaluation study on the external coherence and synergies of Horizon 2020 within the European research and innovation support system : case study report.” European Commission. 75. D. Draper; N. Lederer. 2013. “Analysis of Readex's Serial Set MARC records: Improving the data for the library catalog.” Government Information Quarterly. 76. R. Dresel; M. Henkel; K. Scheibe; F. Zimmer; W. G. Stock. 2020. “A Nationwide Library System and Its Place in Knowledge Society and Smart Nation: The Case of Singapore.” Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies. 77. D. M. Durant; T. Horava. 2015. “The Future of Reading and Academic Libraries.” Portal-Libraries and the Academy. 78. E. Dutchak; A. Vasilyev. 2016. “Breathing Life into Rare Book Collections: The Digitization of the Taiga Skit Old Believers Library.” Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies. 79. EBLIDA EGIL. 2022. “First European Overview οn E-lending in Public Libraries.” EBLIDA. 80. EBLIDA Secretariat. 2020. “Sustainable Development Goals and Libraries - First European Report.” EBLIDA. 81. N. L. o. L. EBLIDA Secretariat. 2021. “Second European Report on Sustainable Development Goals and Libraries”. EBLIDA. 82. N. L. o. L. EBLIDA Secretariat. 2022. “Second European Report on Sustainable Development Goals and Libraries - Full Version.” EBLIDA 83. I. a. D. A. European Bureau of Library. 2020. “Think the unthinkable - A post Covid-19 European Library Agenda meeting Sustainable Development Goals and funded through the European Structural and Investment Funds (2021-2027).” EBLIDA. 84. G. D. Ellern; R. Hitch; M. A. Stoffan. 2015. “User Authentication in the Public Area of Academic Libraries in North Carolina.” Information Technology and Libraries. 85. J. Elmborg; H. L. M. Jacobs; K. McElroy; R. Nelson. 2015. “Making a Third Space for Student Voices in Two Academic Libraries.” Reference & User Services Quarterly. 86. L. Engstrom; J. R. Eckerdal. 2017. “In-between strengthened accessibility and economic demands. Analysing self-service libraries from a user perspective”. Journal of Documentation. 87. European Commission; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. 2018. “Mutual Learning Exercise: Open Science — Altmetrics and Rewards.” European Commission. 88. European Commission. 2019. “Open Science.” European Commission. 89. European Commission. 2021. “Monitoring the open access policy of Horizon 2020: final report.” Directorate-General for Research Innovation. 90. L. Fallin. 2016. “Beyond books: the concept of the academic library as learning space.” New Library World. 91. K. A. Falloon. 2019. “Evaluating PDA using financial analysis for streaming videos: a case study at a US academic library.” Collection and Curation. 92. K. A. Falloon. 2020. “Effectively Evaluating the Accessibility of Electronic Monographs Using VPATs and Other Resources at the College of Staten Island LibraryCUNY.” Serials Review. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 51 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 93. S. Fazal. 2016. “Library Strategic Planning for Middle States Accreditation: A 10-Year Road to Success.” Journal of Library Administration. 94. K. A. Flynn; C. J. Hartnett. 2018. “Cutting through the Fog Government Information, Librarians, and the Forty-Fifth Presidency.” Reference & User Services Quarterly. 95. L. M. Freeman; N. Blomley. 2019. “Enacting property: Making space for the public in the municipal library.” Politics and Space. 96. P. Fruehan; D. Hellyar. 2021. “Expanding and Improving Our Library's Virtual Chat Service: Discovering Best Practices when Demand Increases.” Information Technology & Libraries. 97. R. Froud. 2016. “Resource sharing in the UK public library system: an update.” Interlending & Document Supply. 98. M. A. Ganaee; M. Rafiq. 2016. “Pakistani University Library Web Sites: Features, Contents, and Maintenance Issues.” Journal of Web Librarianship. 99. P. A. Gaona-Garcia; D. Martin-Moncunill; C. E. Montenegro-Marin 2017 Trends and challenges of visual search interfaces in digital libraries and repositories Electronic Library 100. J. A. Glassman; D. M. Worsham. 2017. “Digital research notebook: a simple tool for reflective learning.” Reference Services Review. 101. G. Gmiterek. 2021. “Polish university libraries social networking services during the COVID-19 pandemic spring term lockdown.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 102. J.-A. Gomez-Hernandez; M. Hernandez-Pedreno; E. Romero-Sanchez. 2017. “Social and Digital Empowerment of Vulnerable Library Users of the Murcia Regional Library, Spain.” El Profesional de la Informacion. 103. R. Gomez. 2013. “When You Do Not Have a Computer: Public-Access Computing in Developing Countries.” Information Technology for Development. 104. S. Gonzales; M. B. Carson; G. Viger; L. O'Keefe; N. B. Allen; J. P. Ferrie; K. Holmes. 2021. “User Testing with Microinteractions: Enhancing a Next Generation Repository.” Information Technology & Libraries. 105. A. Goulding; M. J. Shuker; J. Dickie. 2018. “Apps on laps: digital storytimes in public libraries in Aotearoa New Zealand.” Library Hi Tech. 106. C. Grant; B. Lawlor. 2018. “We are the change we want to see.” Information Services & Use. 107. A. Green. 2022. “Post Covid-19: Expectations for Academic Library Collections, Remote Work, and Resource Description and Discovery Staffing.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 108. M. Groenendyk; R. Gallant. 2013. “3D printing and scanning at the Dalhousie University Libraries: a pilot project.” Library Hi Tech. 109. Y. Guo; A. H. C. Lam; D. K. W. Chiu; K. K. W. Ho. 2022. “Perceived Quality of WhatsApp Reference Service A Quantitative Study from User Perspectives.” Information Technology and Libraries. 110. M. Gustafsson; E. Wihlborg. 2021. “‘It is unbelievable how many come to us’: A study on community librarians’ perspectives on digital inclusion in Sweden.” The Journal of Community Informatics. 111. R. Hall; B. R. Shapiro; A. Hostetler; H. Lubbock; D. Owens; C. Daw; D. Fisher. 2020. “Hereand-Then: Learning by Making Places with Digital Spatial Story Lines.” Cognition and Instruction. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 52 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 112. G. Hallam; J. Sibthorpe. 2018. “Facing the Challenges Together: A Collaborative Approach to Understanding Contemporary Government Library and Information Services.” Journal of the Australian Library & Information Association. 113. G. Hallam; A. Thomas; B. Beach. 2018. “Creating a Connected Future Through Information and Digital Literacy: Strategic Directions at The University of Queensland Library.” Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association. 114. F. Hamad; M. Al-Fadel; H. Fakhouri. 2021. “The effect of librarians' digital skills on technology acceptance in academic libraries in Jordan.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 115. F. Hamad; D. Tbaishat; M. Al-Fadel. 2017. “The role of social networks in enhancing the library profession and promoting academic library services: A comparative study of the University of Jordan and Al-Balqaa’Applied University.” Journal of librarianship and Information Science. 116. S. Han. 2019. “Weathering the Twitter Storm: Early Uses of Social Media as a Disaster Response Tool for Public Libraries During Hurricane Sandy.” Information Technology & Libraries. 117. J. Hansson; K. Johannesson. 2013. “Librarians' Views of Academic Library Support for Scholarly Publishing: An Every-day Perspective.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 118. K. Harcourt; J. LeBlanc. 2017. “Notes on Operations Finale and Future The 2CUL Technical Services Strategic Alliance.” Library Resources & Technical Services. 119. J. L. Hardesty; J. Johnson; J. Wittenberg; N. Hall; M. Cook; Z. Lischer-Katz; Z. W. Xie; R. McDonald. 2020. “3D Data Repository Features, Best Practices, and Implications for Preservation Models: Findings from a National Forum.” College & Research Libraries 120. B. Harloe; P. Hults; A. Traub. 2015. “What’s the Use of Use?: Return on Investment Strategies for Consortial DDA.” Journal of Library Administration. 121. H. E.-R. Hassan; M. Tahoun; G. S. ElTaweel. 2020. “A robust computational DRM framework for protecting multimedia contents using AES and ECC.” Alexandria Engineering Journal 122. S. Hervieux; N. Tummon. 2018. “Let's chat: the art of virtual reference instruction.” Reference Services Review. 123. A. Higgs; B. Lawlor. 2018. “The new dimension in scholarly communications: How a global scholarly community collaboration created the world's largest linked research knowledge system.” Information Services & Use. 124. G. Higgs; M. Langford; R. Fry. 2013. “Investigating variations in the provision of digital services in public libraries using network-based GIS models.” Library & Information Science Research. 125. S. Hildreth; M. Sullivan. 2015. “Rising to the Challenge: Re-Envisioning Public Libraries.” Journal of Library Administration. 126. N. Homenda. 2021. “Persistent URLs and Citations Offered for Digital Objects by Digital Libraries.” Information Technology and Libraries. 127. K. Houghton; M. Foth; E. Miller. 2013. “The continuing relevance of the library as a third place for users and non-users of IT: the case of Canada Bay.” Australian Library Journal. 128. T. Horava. 2013. “Today and in Perpetuity: A Canadian Consortial Strategy for Owning and Hosting Ebooks.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 129. C. Hvenegaard Rasmussen. 2016. “The participatory public library: the Nordic experience.” New Library World. 130. C. P. Hu; Y. Hu; W. W. Yan. 2014. “An empirical study of factors influencing user perception of university digital libraries in China.” Library & Information Science Research. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 53 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 131. J. M. Hu; Y. Zhang. 2016. “Chinese students' behavior intention to use mobile library apps and effects of education level and discipline.” Library Hi Tech 132. E. C. Ihekwoaba. 2022. “Delivering Community Library Services and Adult Library Education for the aged in Nigeria's Rural Communities.” Library Philosophy and Practice. 133. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA); IGF Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries. 2020. “Public Access Policy Toolkit for Libraries.” IFLA 134. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). 2021. “Cities for Digital Rights: Advocacy and engagement opportunities for libraries.” IFLA. 135. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). 2022. “IFLA Response to the UN Global Digital Compact Survey.” 136. C. Ippoliti. 2019. “Digital Faculty Development.” Information Technology & Libraries. 137. M. Jabeen; Q. J. Yuan; Y. H. Zhang; M. Jabeen; M. Imran. 2017. “Usability Study of Digital Libraries: An Analysis of User Perception, Satisfaction, Challenges, and Opportunities at University Libraries of Nanjing, China.” Library Collections Acquisitions & Technical Services. 138. M. M. Jaeger; E. H. Blaabaek. 2020. “Inequality in learning opportunities during Covid-19: Evidence from library takeout.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. 139. P. T. Jaeger; J. C. Bertot; U. Gorham. 2013. “Wake Up the Nation: Public Libraries, Policy Making, and Political Discourse.” Library Quarterly. 140. P. T. Jaeger; U. Gorham; J. C. Bertot; N. G. Taylor; E. Larson; R. Lincoln; J. Lazar; B. Wentz. 2014. “Connecting government, libraries and communities: Information behavior theory and information intermediaries in the design of LibEGov.org.” First Monday. 141. P. T. Jaeger; U. Gorham; L. C. Sarin; J. C. Bertot. 2013. “Libraries, Policy, and Politics in a Democracy: Four Historical Epochs.” Library Quarterly. 142. R. Jamali; A. Moshabaki; H. Aramoon; A. Alimohammadi. 2013. “Customer relationship management in electronic environment.” Electronic Library. 143. S. Jan; S. A. Ganaie; M. Khazer. 2017. “Scholars Perception Regarding Digital Library Resources and Services.” Trends in Information Management. 144. A. O. Jaunsen. 2018. “The state of open science in the Nordic Countries - Enabling data-driven science in the Nordic countries.” Nordic E-Infrastructure Collaboration. 145. C. Jiang; Y. Ma; H. Chen; Y. Zheng; S. Gao; S. Cheng. 2020. “Cyber physics system: a review.” Library Hi Tech. 146. T. Jiang; Y. Chi; H. Gao. 2017. “A clickstream data analysis of Chinese academic library OPAC users' information behavior.” Library & Information Science Research. 147. H. Jochumsen; D. Skot-Hansen; C. H. Rasmussen. 2017. “Towards Culture 3.0-performative space in the public library.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 148. A. P. Joel; E. Camble. 2021. “Information dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of librarians in Borno State Public Library.” Information Development. 149. V. Johansson; P. Nonthacumjane. 2022. “Representational work and 'reverse order' essentialism: Digitisation of local information in Thailand and Bhabha's Third Space.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 150. M. W. Johnson; M. Lasher. 2021. “The Community Workshop Series: A Case Study for Community-Engaged Learning in LIS.” Library Trends. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 54 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 151. N. Johnston. 2020. “The Shift towards Digital Literacy in Australian University Libraries: Developing a Digital Literacy Framework.” Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association. 152. D. R. Jones. 2013. “Locked Collections: Copyright and the Future of Research Support.” Law Library Journal. 153. S. Joo; N. Choi . 2015. “Factors affecting undergraduates' selection of online library resources in academic tasks Usefulness, ease-of-use, resource quality, and individual differences.” Library Hi Tech. 154. S. Joo; N. Choi. 2016. “Understanding users' continuance intention to use online library resources based on an extended expectation-confirmation model.” Electronic Library. 155. H. Kaatrakoski; J. Lahikainen. 2016. ““What We Do Every Day Is Impossible”: Managing Change by Developing a Knotworking Culture in an Academic Library.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 156. M. G. Kasa; A. Yusuf. 2020. “Experience of an Academic Library during the covid-19 pandemic.” Library Philosophy and Practice 157. A. Kaun; M. Forsman. 2022. “Digital care work at public libraries: Making Digital First possible.” New Media & Society. 158. W. Kelly; B. McGrath; D. Hubbard. 2022. “Starting from 'scratch': Building young people's digital skills through a coding club collaboration with rural public libraries”. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 159. S. Kent Willis; F. O'Reilly. 2018. “Enhancing Visibility of Vendor Accessibility Documentation.” Information Technology & Libraries. 160. H. Keshavarz; A. Hossein Noorafrooz. 2020. “Dimensions of e-readiness in university libraries: Identification and prioritization using AHP technique.” Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies. 161. A. Khan; R. Bhatti; A. Khan. 2016. “E-books usage by agricultural, engineering and social science students in selected universities of Pakistan An empirical assessment .” Electronic Library 162. A. Khan; F. Jabeen; F. Naz; S. Suhail; M. Ahmed; S. Nawaz. 2016. “Buyer seller watermarking protocols issues and challenges – A survey.” Journal of Network and Computer Applications. 163. A. Khan; M. N. Masrek; K. Mahmood; S. Qutab. 2017. “Factors influencing the adoption of digital reference services among the university librarians in Pakistan.” Electronic Library. 164. S. A. Khan; R. Bhatti. 2017. “Digital competencies for developing and managing digital libraries. An investigation from university librarians in Pakistan.” Electronic Library. 165. S. A. Khan; K. Shahzad. 2022. “Key features of digital library management system (DLMS) for developing digital libraries: An investigation from LIS practitioners in Pakistan.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 166. V. Khanchandani. 2022. “Role of public libraries in the evolution of digital Bharat into Atmanirbhar Bharat.” Public Library Quarterly. 167. J.-A. Kim. 2016. “Dimensions of User Perception of Academic Library as Place.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 168. S. Kim; J. W. Lee. 2016. “Developing a digital library model for virtual universities in Korea: Current state and prospective model.” Information Development. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 55 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 169. A. K. Kimura. 2018. “Defining, evaluating, and achieving accessible library resources A review of theories and methods.” Reference Services Review. 170. P. Kiszl; R. Rado; M. P. Hubay. 2018. “From Divergence to Convergence in Hungarian Librarianship: Towards a Common Digital Platform.” Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies. 171. A. K. Kruger; S. Petersohn. 2022. “I want to be able to do what I know the tools will allow us to do': Practicing evaluative bibliometrics through digital infrastructure.” Research Evaluation. 172. R. Kunkel. 2017. “Law Libraries and the Future of Public Access to Born-Digital Government Information.” Law Library Journal. 173. A. Laïfi; E. Josserand. 2016. “Legitimation in practice: A new digital publishing business model.” Journal of Business Research. 174. F. Lagzian; A. Abrizah; M. C. Wee. 2015. “Critical success factors for institutional repositories implementation.” Electronic Library. 175. A. Lakind; R. Willett; E. R. Halverson. 2019. “Democratizing the Maker Movement A Case Study of One Public Library System's Makerspace Program.” Reference & User Services Quarterly. 176. S. S. Lamdan. 2013. “Why library cards offer more privacy rights than proof of citizenship: Librarian ethics and Freedom of Information Act requestor policies.” Government Information Quarterly. 177. M. Lasher; K. Denzer. 2020. “Just Popping In: Collections and Outreach Collaborations to Increase Student Engagement with Electronic Resources.” Serials Review. 178. B. P. Le. 2015. “Academic library leadership in the digital age.” Library Management. 179. P. Lázaro-Rodríguez. 2021. “Digital news on public libraries: Media mapping and thematic and consumption analysis based on Facebook interactions.” El Profesional de la Información. 180. League Of European Research Universities. 2017. “Beyond the Horizon: LERU’s views on the 9th Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.” LERU. 181. League Of European Research Universities. 2022. “LERU Report on first experiences with proposal preparation and submission in Horizon Europe.” LERU. 182. Ligue des Bibliothques Européennes de Recherche. 2022. “LIBER Annual Report 2021-2022.” LIBER 183. L. d. B. q. E. e. d. Recherche. 2022. “LIBER Strategy 2023-2027.” LIBER 184. A. Leguina; S. Mihelj; J. Downey. 2021. “Public libraries as reserves of cultural and digital capital: Addressing inequality through digitalization.” Library & Information Science Research. 185. M. Levine-Clark. 2014. “Access to Everything: Building the Future Academic Library Collection”. Portal-Libraries and the Academy. 186. A. G. Li. 2013. “Mobile Library Service in Key Chinese Academic Libraries.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 187. A. Lierman; B. Scott; M. Warren; C. Turner. 2019. “Testing for Transition: Evaluating the Usability of Research Guides Around a Platform Migration.” Information Technology & Libraries. 188. A. Lieu; D. Z. Zhao. 2019. “How much of library digital content is checked out but never used? A call for refined lending models.” Electronic Library. 189. J. Linden; S. Tudesco; D. Dollar. 2018. “Collections as a Service: A Research Library's Perspective.” College & Research Libraries. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 56 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 190. P. Lo; A. Cho; B. K. K. Law; D. K. W. Chiu; B. Allard. 2017. “Progressive Trends in Electronic Resources Management Among Academic Libraries in Hong Kong.” Library Collections Acquisitions & Technical Services. 191. A. Lopez; P. Mayr. 2013. “EVA (ErwerbungsVorschlags-Assistant) assists in collection building! Using ILL data for patron-driven acquisition.” Interlending & Document Supply. 192. P. J. Lor. 2018. “Democracy, information, and libraries in a time of post-truth discourse.” Library Management. 193. Y. A. Loukissas. 2017. “Taking Big Data apart: local readings of composite media collections.” Information, Communication & Society. 194. J. Lu; D. Wu; M. Mao; W. Wang; G. Zhang. 2015. “Recommender system application developments: A survey.” Decision Support Systems. 195. G. Machovec. 2015. “Calculating the Return on Investment (ROI) for Library Consortia.” Journal of Library Administration. 196. M. Maistrovskaya; R. Wang. 2020. “Creating and Managing a Repository of Past Exam Papers.” Information Technology & Libraries. 197. A. Malik; K. Mahmood. 2014. “Readiness for digital reference service (DRS) in university libraries: a survey in the Punjab, Pakistan.” Information Development. 198. N. Mnkeni-Saurombe; N. Zimu. 2015. “Towards tackling inequalities in South Africa: the role of community libraries.” Information Development. 199. N. S. Mani; M. Cawley; A. Henley; T. Triumph; J. M. Williams. 2021. “Creating a Data Science Framework: A Model for Academic Research Libraries.” Journal of Library Administration. 200. M. Manoff. 2015. “Human and Machine Entanglement in the Digital Archive: Academic Libraries and Socio-Technical Change.” Portal-Libraries and the Academy. 201. E. Mansour. 2017. “A survey of digital information literacy (DIL) among academic library and information professionals.” Digital Library Perspectives. 202. Z. Manzuch; E. Maceviciute. 2020. “Getting ready to reduce the digital divide: Scenarios of Lithuanian public libraries.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 203. P. Mapulanga. 2013. “Digitising library resources and building digital repositories in the University of Malawi Libraries.” Electronic Library. 204. A. Martek; D. Mučnjak; D. Mumelaš. 2022. “Citizen Science in Europe—Challenges in Conducting Citizen Science Activities in Cooperation of University and Public Libraries.” Publications (Basel). 205. J. R. Matthews. 2020. “COVID-19 and Public Libraries: A Real Paradigm Shift Public.” Library Quarterly. 206. K. K. Matusiak. 2017. “User Navigation in Large-Scale Distributed Digital Libraries: The Case of the Digital Public Library of America.” Journal of Web Librarianship. 207. A. J. McDermott; J. C. Bertot; P. T. Jaeger. 2015. “Digital Inclusion and the Affordable Care Act: Public Libraries, Politics, Policy, and Enrollment in Obamacare.” Public Library Quarterly. 208. D. McMenemy; E. Robinson; I. Ruthven. 2023. “The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns on Public Libraries in the UK: Findings from a National Study.” Public Library Quarterly. 209. D. Mehta; X. Wang. 2020. “COVID-19 and digital library services – a case study of a university library.” Digital Library Perspectives. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 57 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 210. J. J. Meier. 2016. “The Future of Academic Libraries: Conversations with Today's Leaders about Tomorrow.” Portal-Libraries and the Academy. 211. A. Meyer; I. Fourie. 2015. “What to make of makerspaces Tools and DIY only or is there an interconnected information resources space?” Library Hi Tech. 212. K. Michnik; C. Eriksson. 2014. “Non-traditional library collections - in digital and other worlds.” Interlending & Document Supply. 213. R. Michalak; M. D. T. Rysavy. 2020. “Assessing the Accessibility of Library Tools & Services When You Aren't an Accessibility Expert: Part 2.” Journal of Library Administration. 214. A. Mierzecka; M. Kisilowska; A. Suminas. 2017. “Researchers' Expectations Regarding the Online Presence of Academic Libraries.” College & Research Libraries. 215. A. Mierzecka; A. Suminas. 2018. “Academic library website functions in the context of users’ information needs.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 216. S. H. Mirghafoori; H. S. Tooranloo; S. Saghafi. 2020. “Diagnosing and routing electronic service quality improvement of academic libraries with the FMEA approach in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment.” Electronic Library. 217. R. Missingham. 2021. “A New Lens for Evaluation – Assessing Academic Libraries Using the UN Sustainable Development Goals.” Journal of Library Administration. 218. P. P. Mitchem; D. M. Rice. 2017. “Creating Digital Scholarship Services at Appalachian State University.” Portal-Libraries and the Academy. 219. R. D. Montoya. 2016. “Advocating for Sustainability: Scaling-Down Library Digital Infrastructure.” Journal of Library Administration. 220. M. J. Moon. 2017. “Government-driven Sharing Economy: Lessons from the Sharing City Initiative of the Seoul Metropolitan Government.” Journal of Developing Societies 221. C. Mubofu; H. Mambo; A. Samzugi. 2021. “Information Resources Preservation: Bottlenecks and their Effect on Library Information Services Restaurator-International.” Journal for the Preservation of Library and Archival Material. 222. A. Muir. 2019. “Copyright and digital academic library development in the UK.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 223. K. Mullins. 2017. “Research Plus (TM) mobile app: information literacy On the Go.” Reference Services Review. 224. J. A. Murphy. 2019. “Ebook Sharing Models in Academic Libraries”. Serials Review. 225. M. Narlock; D. Brower. 2021. “Product Ownership of a Legacy Institutional Repository: A Case Study on Revitalizing an Aging Service.” Information Technology & Libraries. 226. C. T. Nengomasha; T. N. Shuumbili. 2022. “Access to e-government services by citizens through public/community libraries in Namibia.” Information Development. 227. K. Nicholson. 2019. “Collaborative, creative, participative: Trends in public library innovation.” Public Library Quarterly. 228. E. C. Nicol; L. Crook. 2013. “Now it's Necessary: Virtual Reference Services at Washington State University, Pullman.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 229. M. Nikta; C. Karydis. 2021. “Municipal libraries and new technologies.” Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 64 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 350. X. J. Zhai; J. J. Wang. 2016. “Improving relations between users and libraries: a survey of Chinese academic libraries.” Electronic Library. 351. H. M. Zhang. 2018. “Reform Method and Effect Analysis of University Library Education Based on Digital Information Technology.” Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice. 352. M. Zhang; X. L. Shen; M. X. Zhu; J. Yang. 2016. “Which platform should I choose? Factors influencing consumers' channel transfer intention from web-based to mobile library service.” Library Hi Tech. 353. W. X. Zhang; B. Liu; S. B. Tsai. 2022. “Analysis and Research on Digital Reading Platform of Multimedia Library by Big Data Computing in Internet Era.” Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing. 354. L. Zvyagintseva. 2018. “It is Our Flagship: Surveying the Landscape of Digital Interactive Displays in Learning Environments.” Information Technology & Libraries. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 65 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 References Arlitsch, K., & Newell, B. (2017). Thriving in the age of accelerations: A brief look at the societal effects of artificial intelligence and the opportunities for libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 57(7), 789-798. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2017.1362912 Ashiq, M., Jabeen, F., & Mahmood, K. (2022). Transformation of libraries during Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(4), 102534. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102534 Bailey, D. E., Faraj, S., Hinds, P. J., Leonardi, P. M., & von Krogh, G. (2022). We are all theorists of technology now: A relational perspective on emerging technology and organizing. Organization Science, 33(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1562 Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription, 19(2), 328-335. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x Bech-Petersen, S. (2020). Design Thinking as a Framework for Innovation in Libraries. Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis, 44(1), 7-11. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/bfp-2020-0009 Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2021). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological methods & research, 50(2), 837-865. https://doi.org/https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0049124118799372 Bilandzic, M., & Johnson, D. (2013). Hybrid placemaking in the library: designing digital technology to enhance users' on-site experience. The Australian Library Journal, 62(4), 258-271. Bradley, F. (2022). Representation of libraries in artificial intelligence regulations and implications for ethics and practice. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 71(3), 189-200. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2101911 Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies ‘Engines of growth’? Journal of econometrics, 65(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01598-T Calvert, P. (2017). Robots, the quiet workers, are you ready to take over? Public Library Quarterly, 36(2), 167-172. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2017.1275787 Chase, S. (2017). Design Thinking in Action: Changing the Public Service Model. https://journals3.oregondigital.org/olaq/article/view/vol22_iss3_6/892 Chow, L., & Sajonas, S. (2020). From UX Study to UX Service: Using People-Centered Research Methods to Improve the Public Library Experience [Article]. Public Library Quarterly, 39(6), 493509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2019.1682884 Clarke, R. I., Amonkar, S., & Rosenblad, A. (2020). Design thinking and methods in library practice and graduate library education. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(3), 749-763. Clarke, R. I., & Bell, S. (2018). Transitioning from the MLS to the MLD: Integrating Design Thinking and Philosophy into Library and Information Science Education. In J. Percell, L. C. Sarin, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Re-envisioning the MLS: Perspectives on the Future of Library and Information Science Education (Vol. 44A, pp. 195-214). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-28302018000044A018 Clarke, R. I., & Bell, S. (2021). Attitudes and Perceptions toward Design Thinking in Graduate-Level Library Education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 62(3), 303-325. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.2020-0028 Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 66 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Cockburn, I. M., Henderson, R., & Stern, S. (2019). The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation: An exploratory analysis. In The economics of artificial intelligence (pp. 115-148). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/http://www.nber.org/chapters/c14006 Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—part 1: topic choice. In (Vol. 54, pp. 432-435): Academy of Management Journal. Conyers, B., Flynn, B., & Hyde, J. (2015). Journey Maps and Customer Hacks: Redesigning Services at the State Library Victoria. Synergy, 13(1). Day, J., & Bobeva, M. (2005). A generic toolkit for the successful management of Delphi studies. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 3(2), pp103‑116. Decker, E. N. (2020). Engaging Students in Academic Library Design: Emergent Practices in Co-Design [Article]. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 26(2-4), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2020.1761409 Dekker, H., Ferria, A., & Mandal, I. (2022). URI Libraries' AI Lab--Evolving to Meet the Needs of Students and Research Communities. Dhillon, G., Smith, K., & Dissanayaka, I. (2021). Information systems security research agenda: Exploring the gap between research and practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 30(4), 101693. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2021.101693 Dindler, C., Eriksson, E., Dalsgaard, P., & Acm. (2016, Oct 23-27). A Large-Scale Design Thinking Project Seen from the Perspective of Participants. [Proceedings of the nordichi '16: The 9th nordic conference on human-computer interaction - game changing design]. 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI), Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept of Appl Informat Technol, Gothenburg, SWEDEN. Dolan, M., Hemment, M., & Oliver, S. (2017). Framework for Sustaining Innovation at Baker Library, Harvard Business School [Article]. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(2/3), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1318764 Dresel, R., Henkel, M., Scheibe, K., Zimmer, F., & Stock, W. G. (2020). A Nationwide Library System and Its Place in Knowledge Society and Smart Nation: The Case of Singapore. LibriInternational Journal of Libraries and Information Studies, 70(1), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2019-0019 Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of business research, 55(7), 553-560. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S01482963(00)00195-8 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385 Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt Method, really? Strategic Organization, 19(1), 147-160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020982866 Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 Frank, N. F., & Schrader, J. (2020). Do They Really Know What They Need? Prototypes and Different Research Methods as a Means of Testing Students'Feedback – A Case-Study [Article]. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 26(2-4), 433-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2020.1810080 Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 67 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Gasparini, A. A., & Kautonen, H. (2022). Understanding Artificial Intelligence in Research Libraries: An Extensive Literature Review. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 32(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/https://liberquarterly.eu/article/view/10934/13102 Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151 Guenduez, A. A., & Mettler, T. (2023). Strategically constructed narratives on artificial intelligence: What stories are told in governmental artificial intelligence policies? Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), 101719. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101719 Haines, K., & Rodgers, E. P. (2021). Creating a contactless pickup service at the University of Michigan library: Iterative service design and interaction safety during the pandemic. Journal of Access Services, 18(4), 225-252. Hervieux, S., & Wheatley, A. (2021). Perceptions of artificial intelligence: A survey of academic librarians in Canada and the United States. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1), 102270. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102270 Hervieux, S., & Wheatley, A. (2022). The rise of AI: Implications and applications of artificial intelligence in academic libraries. Association of College and Research Libraries. IDEO. (2015). Design Thinking For Libraries - A Toolkit For Patron-Centered Design IDEO. http://designthinkingforlibraries.com/about Kaushal, V., & Yadav, R. (2022). The role of chatbots in academic libraries: An experience-based perspective. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 71(3), 215-232. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2106403 Llewellyn, A. (2019). Innovations in learning and teaching in academic libraries: A literature review. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 25(2-4), 129-149. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2019.1678494 Loh, C. E., Hamarian, E. B. M., Qi, L. L. Y., Lim, Q., & Zee, S. N. Y. (2021). Developing future-ready school libraries through design thinking: A case study. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03400352211028897 Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2006). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human communication research, 28(4), 587604. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x Luca, E., Narayan, B., & Cox, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence and robots for the library and information professions. 71(3), 185-188. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2104814 Luca, E., & Ulyannikova, Y. (2020). Towards a User-Centred Systematic Review Service: The Transformative Power of Service Design Thinking [Article]. Journal of the Australian Library & Information Association, 69(3), 357-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2020.1760506 Lucas, C., Nielsen, R. A., Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Storer, A., & Tingley, D. (2015). Computerassisted text analysis for comparative politics. Political Analysis, 23(2), 254-277. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu019 McGrath, O. G. (2016, Nov 06-09). Making a Makerspace: Designing User Services to Serve Designing Users. [Proceedings of the 2016 acm siguccs annual conference (siguccs'16)]. 44th SIGUCCS Annual Conference, Denver, CO. Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 68 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., & Brennan, S. E. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International journal of surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Pandey, S. (2016). Proto Design Practice: translating design thinking practices to organizational settings. https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/56049 Passehl-Stoddart, E., & Snipes, G. (2020). Space to think: Co-designing a library environment for student ideation. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 26(2-4), 365-384. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc. Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2018). The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of Eisenhardt and Yin. The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods, 345-358. Puranam, P. (2018). The microstructure of organizations. Oxford University Press. Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (1992). What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge university press. Raquel, J. R., Vincent, V. R., Fiammetta, R., & Luca, T. (2022). AI Watch. National strategies on Artificial Intelligence: A European perspective. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation– augmentation paradox. Academy of management review, 46(1), 192-210. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2019). Stm: An R package for Structural Topic Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 91, 1-40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v091.i02 Schmidt, R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. decision Sciences, 28(3), 763-774. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01330.x Scholl, H. J. (2022). The Digital Government Reference Library (DGRL). Versions 18.0—18.5. In. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage. Schramm, W. (1971). Notes on Case Studies of Instructional Media Projects. Schwarz, G. M., & Stensaker, I. G. (2016). Showcasing phenomenon-driven research on organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 16(4), 245-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2016.1230931 Sharma, A., Rana, N. P., & Nunkoo, R. (2021). Fifty years of information management research: A conceptual structure analysis using structural topic modeling. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102316. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102316 Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. In (Vol. 49, pp. 633-642): Academy of Management Journal. Tait, E., & Pierson, C. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence and robots in libraries: Opportunities in LIS curriculum for preparing the librarians of tomorrow. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 71(3), 256-274. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2081111 Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative inquiry, 17(6), 511-521. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411409884 Horizon Europe Project LibrarIN HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 D3.1 Digital Transformation and ICT v1.0 Page | 69 LibrarIN -101061516 — HORIZON-CL2-2021-HERITAGE-01-02 Von Der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological forecasting and social change, 79(8), 1525-1536. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013 Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of management review, 32(4), 1145-1154. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586080 van Noordt, C., & Misuraca, G. (2020). Evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence technologies in public services: towards an assessment framework. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance Van Wessel, J. W. (2020). AI in Libraries: Seven Principles. Von Krogh, G., Rossi-Lamastra, C., & Haefliger, S. (2012). Phenomenon-based research in management and organisation science: When is it rigorous and does it matter? Long range planning, 45(4), 277-298. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.05.001 Whang, L., Tawatao, C., Danneker, J., Belanger, J., Weber, S. E., Garcia, L., & Klaus, A. (2017). Understanding the transfer student experience using design thinking [Article]. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 298-313. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-10-2016-0073 Wheatley, A., & Hervieux, S. (2019). Artificial intelligence in academic libraries: An environmental scan. Information Services & Use, 39(4), 347-356. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISU190065 Wójcik, M. (2019). How to design innovative information services at the library? Library Hi Tech, 37(2), 138-154. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-07-2018-0094 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Sage.