What contributes to humanities scholars’ digital academic information-seeking behaviors: a study based on PLS-SEM and fsQCA

Purpose The digital scholarship environment has transformed research paradigms (e.g. Digital Humanities) and significantly impacted humanities scholars’ information practices, including seeking, accessing, managing, communicating and publishing. While existing qualitative studies describe shifts in resource selection and information-seeking processes, empirical evidence remains limited on the linear relationships between cognitive/affective factors and digital information-seeking behaviors. This article aims to investigate the mechanisms linking key determinants to humanities scholars’ digital academic information-seeking behaviors. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire method was adopted in this study, and 351 samples (225 valid samples) were obtained by diffusing the questionnaire links through opinion leaders among humanities scholars. Then, a mixed-methods analysis design combining Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) was conducted. Findings Firstly, PLS-SEM revealed that information needs, perceived value and technology readiness positively predict humanities scholars’ digital academic information-seeking behaviors, while paper format preference exhibits a significant negative effect. Secondly, fsQCA identified four distinct causal configurations triggering high digital academic information-seeking behaviors, categorized into two modes based on core conditions: the “Needs-Value” mode (rational behavioral pattern) and the “Technology Readiness” mode (digital competence-driven behavioral pattern). Originality/value Adopting a mixed-methods design, this article quantitatively reveals the mechanisms of humanities scholars’ digital academic information-seeking behaviors, including the path relationships and multiple and concurrent patterns of determinants toward behaviors, which bridges the gap of existing studies focusing on qualitative descriptions. This article could offer practical implications for academic libraries regarding digital resource development, scholarly services and digital empowerment.