This study examines Library and Information Science (LIS) students’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in research literacy and integrity; and the university stakeholders’ concerns on this issue. This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-method design. A structured questionnaire was employed to gather quantitative data from LIS students (Honors final-year and Master’s level) at the Institute of Information Sciences (IIS), Noakhali Science and Technology University (NSTU) in Bangladesh and got 107 voluntary responses. Qualitative data were collected through a series of interviews with LIS research students (n = 13) to develop an in-depth understanding of their research integrity; interviews were also conducted with university librarians, Research Cell representatives and Institutional Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) representatives in relation to the research support services provided for students. The study identified that LIS students demonstrated moderate to moderately high levels of perceived self-efficacy across research literacy, research ethics/integrity, and publication ethics domains; however, gaps remained in practical research skills and institutional support. Inferential analysis showed that neither educational level nor gender was significantly associated with differences in perceived research literacy self-efficacy. Interview findings indicated that LIS students identified specified courses in their undergraduate curriculum as instrumental in building a strong research foundation. An interview with the librarian highlighted limitations, including a lack of information literacy training, an institutional repository, and a limited collection of e-resources. The Research Cell at NSTU provides research support to faculty and students, allocates funding for MS students, and arranges seminar symposiums on several research topics. The IQAC Director emphasized the importance of faculty training, as they play a supervisory role in guiding research students. Additionally, IQAC plans to organize future research seminars and training sessions for students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nahar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: