Home⇛Information Generation & Management⇛vol. 4 no. 1 (2025)

Librarians' Acceptance of ChatGPT Generative AI: A Systematic Literature Review

Lyka Isabelle P. Casidsid | Peacebell Joy Anne P. Pama

Discipline: library and information science

 

Abstract:

Purpose. This study examines the factors influencing librarians’ acceptance of ChatGPT Generative AI, as identified in existing LIS literature. Design/ Methodology / Approach. A systematic literature review was conducted using Scopus and Google Scholar. This study follows a systematic guide to literature review development. PICOC criteria were used to formulate the research question, and the systematic search process for articles followed the PRISMA approach. Findings. The SLR provided insights into the factors influencing librarians’ acceptance of ChatGPT Generative AI in library services and how the factors differ across various countries or library contexts, and what gaps or contradictions are evident in the existing literature. After a thorough review of the selected literature, 14 articles, eight from Scopus and six from Google Scholar have shown that there are several factors that influenced librarians' acceptance of ChatGPT generative AI. Factors including: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and anxiety. Findings also reveal that ChatGPT’s acceptance is not uniform across various countries and LIS contexts. Originality/ Value. The study attempts to identify the factors that influence librarians’ acceptance of ChatGPT Generative AI, as determined in existing LIS literature using key themes: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and anxiety.



References:

  1. Adam, M., Wessel, M., & Benlian, A. (2021). AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance. Electronic Markets, 31(2), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00414-7
  2. Ali, M. (2024). AI ChatGPT applications in libraries—challenges and opportunities. Bilgi ve Belge Araştırmaları Dergisi / The Journal of Information and Documentation Studies, 0(20), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.26650/bba.2023.20.1364582
  3. Ali, M. Y., Naeem, S. B., & Bhatti, R. (2020). Artificial intelligence tools and perspectives of university librarians: An overview. Business Information Review, 37(3), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382120952016
  4. Brzustowicz, R. (2023). From ChatGPT to CatGPT: The implications of artificial intelligence on library cataloging. Information Technology and Libraries, 42(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i3.16295
  5. Cox, A. (2023). How artificial intelligence might change academic library work: Applying the competencies literature and the theory of the professions. Journal of the Associatio for Information Science and Technology, 74(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24635
  6. Cox, A. M., & Mazumdar, S. (2022). Defining artificial intelligence for librarians. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 56(2), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221142029
  7. De Jesus, F. S. D., Ibarra, L. M., Villanueva, W., & Leyesa, M. (2024). ChatGPT as an artificial intelligence learning tool for business administration students in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(6), 348–372. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.6.16
  8. De Leon, L. C. R., Flores, L. V., & Alomo, A. R. L. (2024). Artificial intelligence and Filipino academic librarians: Perceptions, challenges and opportunities. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 73(1), 66-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2024.2305993
  9. Distor, C. B., Khaltar, O., & Moon, M. J. (2021). Adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in local governments: An exploratory study on the attitudes and perceptions of officials in a municipal government in the Philippines. 8, 33-65. https://ovcre.uplb.edu.ph/journals-uplb/index.php/JPAD/article/view/798
  10. Gasparini, A., & Kautonen, H. (2022). Understanding artificial intelligence in research libraries – Extensive literature review. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 32(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.10934
  11. 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/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102270
  12. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–W64. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
  13. Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 879–910. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03743
  14. Panda, S., & Chakravarty, R. (2022). Adapting intelligent information services in libraries: A case of smart ai chatbots. Library Hi Tech News, 39(1), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-11-2021-0081
  15. Rosales, M. A., Magsumbol, J. V., Palconit, M. G. B., Culaba, A. B., & Dadios, E. P. (2020). Artificial intelligence: The technology adoption and impact in the Philippines. 2020 IEEE 12th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and Management (HNICEM), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/HNICEM51456.2020.9400025
  16. Subaveerapandiyan, A., Sunanthini, C., & Amees, M. (2023). A study on the knowledge and perception of artificial intelligence. IFLA Journal, 49(3), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352231180230
  17. Susskind, D., & Susskind, R. (2017). The future of the professions. Oxford University Press.
  18. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified model. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  19. Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., Han, Q.-L., & Tang, Y. (2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2023.123618

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic