Successfully reported this slideshow.

Ic 8 lac-10242010_final

473 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Ic 8 lac-10242010_final

  1. 1. Still Bound for Disappointment? Another Look at Faculty and Library Journal Collections Library Assessment Conference 2010 Jennifer Rutner, Assessment & Marketing Librarian, Columbia University Libraries Jim Self, Director, Management Information Services, University of Virginia Libraries
  2. 2. 2006
  3. 3. 2006 Research Questions • Given the substantial investment in journals, why are faculty consistently dissatisfied with their library’s journal collections? • What is the relationship between journal collections and overall library satisfaction among faculty? • How should we address the dissatisfaction?
  4. 4. 2006 Findings ARL libraries are not meeting faculty wants and needs when it comes to journal collections. There is a correlation between overall satisfaction with library services and journal collections. http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arl-br-257-bound.pdf
  5. 5. 2006 Findings A variety of factors influenced faculty perceptions at UVA. • access is confusing • foreign language coverage • incomplete backfiles • physical access • remote access • browsing facilities
  6. 6. 2009
  7. 7. 2009 Research Questions • Are faculty at ARL libraries still dissatisfied with journals? • Is the correlation between journal collection satisfaction and overall satisfaction still significant? • Are journal collections still the #1 issue for faculty? • Why are faculty perceptions negative at Columbia?
  8. 8. Data + Methodology
  9. 9. Data 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 LibQUAL+ Notebooks for participating ARL Libraries with >50 faculty respondents. Methodology Same as UVA in 2006. Quantitative analysis of LibQUAL+ faculty data from ARL libraries. Follow-up phone interviews at Columbia.
  10. 10. LibQUAL+
  11. 11. The Infamous IC-8 “The print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work.”
  12. 12. Columbia Faculty 2009
  13. 13. Columbia Library Staff 2009 4 5 6 7 8 9 AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5 LibQual+ 2009, Columbia University Library Staff
  14. 14. ARL Libraries 2009 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AS - 1 AS - 2 AS - 3 AS - 4 AS - 5 AS - 6 AS - 7 AS - 8 AS - 9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP - 1 LP - 2 LP- 3 LP - 4 LP - 5 Figure 3: LibQUAL+ 2009, ARL Libraries Faculty
  15. 15. ARL Libraries 2009: IC8
  16. 16. Have perceptions changed? 4 5 6 7 8 9 2006 2007 2008 2009 Figure 5: LibQUAL+ 2006-09, Faculty Ratings of Journal Collections, ARL Libraries M=8.58, SD=0.10 M=7.44, SD=0.17 M=6.77, SD=0.40 M=8.61, SD=0.07 M=7.52, SD=0.15 M=7.01, SD=0.25 M=8.57, SD=0.13 M=7.51, SD=0.21 M=7.15, SD=0.39 M=8.56, SD=0.10 M=7.52, SD=0.14 M=6.96, SD=0.35
  17. 17. Analysis
  18. 18. Is there a difference in scores from year to year? (ANOVA) • 2006-2009 adequacy gaps from each ARL institution. • P-value = 0.119, which is not deemed statistically significant. Faculty were no more or less dissatisfied with journal collections in 2009.
  19. 19. Journals and Overall Satisfaction 5 6 7 8 9 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 Figure 8: LibQUAL+ 2009, Correlation of Faculty Satisfaction with Journal Collections (IC-8) and Overall Library Service, 21 Libraries r =0.71
  20. 20. IC Item 2006 2007 2008 2009 Standard Deviation (by question) Mean (by question) IC-1 0.44 0.61 0.44 0.55 0.08 0.51 IC-2 0.71 0.55 0.61 0.42 0.12 0.57 IC-3 0.86 0.42 0.31 0.73 0.26 0.58 IC-4 0.71 0.67 0.4 0.61 0.14 0.60 IC-5 0.72 0.49 0.27 0.45 0.19 0.48 IC-6 0.73 0.58 0.42 0.12 0.26 0.46 IC-7 0.81 0.46 0.40 0.67 0.19 0.59 IC-8 0.80 0.60 0.55 0.71 0.11 0.67
  21. 21. What else should we be watching? -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 IC1 IC2 IC3 IC4 IC5 IC6 IC7 IC8 2006 (n=37 ) 2007 (n=19) 2008 (n=14) 2009 (n=21) Figure 6: LibQUAL+ 2006-09, Information Control Adequacy Gaps Over Time
  22. 22. Follow-up at Columbia
  23. 23. What do our faculty say? Columbia Discipline Phone Interviews Conducted N for LibQUAL+ 2009 2009 IC-8 Departmental Mean Adequacy Gap Architecture 5 8 -1.375 Business 6 8 -0.125 Computer Science 4 3 -0.333 Engineering 4 12 -0.583 History 0 22 -0.318 Humanities 5 60 -0.379 Math 1 4 -0.750
  24. 24. What do our faculty say? • Support • Search and online access • Collection gaps • Coverage • Work-around • Quick list • Resources • Print vs. Electronic
  25. 25. What do our faculty say? Support “What would be great for faculty would be if when things are not available, there was one source in the library, extraordinarily skilled at tracking down items. […] These people would be specialists in working the electronic and journal capabilities.”
  26. 26. What do our faculty say? Search and Online Access “I think just having free text search, like Google book search, would be something that would be very, very useful to have. I still feel like we are living 20 years behind where the rest of the world is in terms of being able to search these databases and large collections of books that we have.”
  27. 27. What do our faculty say? Work-Arounds “I just buy them individually from my research funds, so it’s coming out of my research money.”
  28. 28. What do our faculty say? Quick List “If I was to give a suggestion, maybe to have discipline-specific pointers that could help each discipline find things. […] It’s more of an interface issue than a collections issue.”
  29. 29. What do our faculty say? Resources “The size of the collection is not as important as getting the current collection working as smooth as possible. Before, when we used to go to the library, we got service.”
  30. 30. What do our faculty say? Print vs. Electronic “A few years ago, I wouldn’t have said that. But, I guess things have changed.”
  31. 31. What do our faculty say? Remote Access (((crickets)))
  32. 32. Conclusions
  33. 33. What do faculty want? Complete online coverage of a title, in one place, with PDF downloads. Great service, online and in-person.
  34. 34. jenrutner@columbia.edu self@virginia.edu
  35. 35. Special Thanks Shanna Jaggars, Quantitative Consultant Becca Chovnick, Assessment Intern Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonk/48373052/

×