The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470Con.docx

The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Factors Predicting the Importance of Libraries and Research
Activities
for Undergraduates
Krista M. Soria
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 272-4 McNamara Alumni
Center, 200 Oak St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
E-mail address: [email protected]
0099-1333/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All ri
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.017
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 12 July 2013
Accepted 26 August 2013
Available online 26 September 2013
Keywords:
Value of libraries
Importance of research activities
Undergraduates
SERU survey
While prior research has established linkages between
undergraduate students' library use, research participa-
tion, and success, researchers know little about the importance
undergraduates place upon libraries and research

activities. Utilizing data from the Student Experience in the
Research University (SERU) survey, the purpose of
this paper was to examine factors associated with the
importance of libraries and research among undergradu-
ates at nine large, public research universities. The results of
this study suggest a variety of factors are positively
associated with the importance of libraries and research for
students, including participation in research activi-
ties, interest in medical or research careers, academic
engagement, faculty interactions, library satisfaction, and
development of library skills, among others.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Few would question the vital, symbiotic relationship academic
li-
braries have with the college and university campuses within
which
they reside. Kuh and Gonyea (2003, p. 256), for example, noted
that
“the library is the physical manifestation of the core values and
activities
of academic life”. While the value of academic libraries may
seem axi-
omatic, nearly two decades ago, Denham (1995, p. 38)
suggested that
libraries were “under threat” as they faced critical issues that
threatened
their existence. While libraries have changed considerably in
the last
several decades, challenges to the value of libraries have
persisted
(Oakleaf, 2010). Several researchers have conducted studies
addressing
the complex and dynamic value of libraries for colleges and
universities;
for example, through a comprehensive literature review,

Lindauer
(1998) concluded that academic libraries make significant
contribu-
tions to campuses by promoting the quality of teaching and
learning
outcomes. In addition, Weiner (2008) found significant and
positive as-
sociations between library expenditures and the external
reputation of
institutions, suggesting the important role libraries hold in
enhancing
overall institutional prestige.
Researchers continue to document the multifaceted value of aca-
demic libraries for colleges and universities amid a climate of
persistent
calls for increased assessment and accountability (Grallo,
Chalmers, &
Baker, 2012; Haddow, 2013; Haddow & Joseph, 2010; Hagel,
Horn,
Owen, & Currie, 2012; Oakleaf, 2010; Pritchard, 1996; Soria,
Fransen,
& Nackerud, 2013; Wong & Webb, 2011); yet, while prior
research has
deepened understanding of academic libraries' value for
campuses, a
clear void in the literature exists with regards to understanding
the
importance undergraduate students place upon academic
libraries
and research activities. Consequently, the purpose of this study
is to
ghts reserved.
investigate demographic, collegiate, and academic factors
associated
with the level of importance students place upon libraries and

research
activities.
This area of scholarship is significant to academic libraries for
a vari-
ety of reasons. Even before enrolling, many prospective high
school stu-
dents consider libraries important in their college choice
decisions
(Lombard, 2012; Reynolds, 2007). Librarians are therefore in a
position
to use information regarding the importance students place upon
librar-
ies and research to leverage additional resources, build more
advanced
facilities, and expand their collections, all of which could
attract more
applicants to their institutions. Undergraduate students who do
not
consider libraries important may not use library facilities or
collections
to support their academic work or regard them as vital network
of re-
sources on campus. A lack of engagement with libraries systems
and fa-
cilities could lead to immediate reduction of funding for
libraries'
support services if they go underutilized. Additionally, students
who
do not use libraries may not be as successful as their peers:
Soria et al.
(2013) discovered students' use of academic libraries is
significantly
and positively associated with their academic achievement and
reten-
tion controlling for other factors.

In the long-term, students who do not perceive libraries or
research
important to the enterprise may not provide alumni support
toward im-
proving those areas (Clemes, Gan, & Kao, 2008; McAlexander
& Koenig,
2001). Lack of student support for the value of libraries could
negatively
impact greater organizational support for libraries' functions.
The lack of
organizational support for libraries is a matter of deep concern
because
libraries and librarians are sometimes considered ancillary to
the enter-
prise (Crowley, 1996), some have commented that academic
libraries
are largely invisible to university administrators (Hardesty,
2000), and
universities have already lowered their proportion of financial
expendi-
tures to libraries in the last several decades (Association of
Research
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for variables used in analysis.
Categorical variables used in analysis n % Coding/scale
Demographic and personal characteristics

Female 9861 58.77 0 = male; 1 = female
American Indian or Native American 68 .41 0 = White students;
1 race/ethnicity
designated
African American 826 4.92
Hispanic 1884 11.23
Asian 2630 15.67
International 685 4.08
Other or unknown race or ethnicity 768 4.58
Household income b $19,999 1885 11.23 0 = $100,000 and
over;
1 = income designatedHousehold income $20,000–$49,999 2784
16.59
Household income $50,000–$79,999 2941 17.53
Household income $80,000–$99,999 1836 10.94
Transfer student 2576 15.35 0 = non-transfer;
1 = transfer
Freshman 2508 14.95 0 = senior; 1 = level
designatedSophomore 3491 20.81
Junior 4375 26.07
College experiences
Lived in a fraternity or sorority 690 4.11 0 = lived in another
location; 1 = lived in
designated location
Lived in a university residence
hall or apartment
4628 27.58

Lived with family 891 5.31
Enrolled in at least one student
research course
6649 39.63 0 = no; 1 = yes
Enrolled in at least one
independent study course
3337 19.89
Assisted faculty in research with
course credit
2883 17.18
Assisted faculty in research for
pay without course credit
1682 10.02
Assisted faculty in research as a
volunteer without course credit
2434 14.51
Career choice
Artistic or creative professions 1549 9.23 0 = “I do not know”
and “other” careers;
1 = career designated
Business or finance professions 2568 15.30
Education 1085 6.47
Engineering or computer programming 2037 12.14

Law 1202 7.16
Medicine or health related professions 3842 22.90
Psychology or helping professions 835 4.98
Researcher or scientist 1022 6.09
Academic major
Science, technology, engineering,
or math
4778 28.48 0 = undeclared;
1 = yes
Arts or humanities 3021 18.03
Social sciences 1965 11.71
Business 2163 12.89
Education 245 1.46
Health and physical fitness 1420 8.46
Continuous variables used in analysis M SD Range
Cumulative grade point average 3.27 .54 .00 to 4.30
Academic engagement factor .00 1.00 −2.57 to 2.37
Importance of libraries and research factor .00 1.00 −3.46 to
2.55
Library skills factor .00 1.00 −8.89 to 6.21
Satisfaction with libraries and research
factor
.00 1.00 −4.95 to 2.18
Faculty interactions factor .00 1.00 −2.66 to 4.52
465K.M. Soria / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39
(2013) 464–470
Libraries, 2012). These factors signal increasing pressure for
academic li-

braries to demonstrate their continued value, especially among
under-
graduate students who are essential to the mission and function
of
most universities.
Prior researchers have examined differences in undergraduates'
use of library facilities by demographic factors, including
cultural diver-
sity, race, and gender (Onwuegbuzie & Qun, 1997; Whitmire,
1999,
2003); college experiences (Whitmire, 2001); and academic
disciplines
(Bridges, 2008; Hiller, 2002). Yet, at present, there is no
scholarship
examining whether these types of demographics, background
charac-
teristics, and college experiences are associated with the
importance
students place on libraries and research activities as a part of
their
higher education experience. The results of the present study
address-
ing the gap in scholarship can be used in a variety of ways to
help aca-
demic librarians and administrators to understand which
populations
of students value libraries and research activity over others,
what colle-
giate experiences can positively promote the value of libraries
and re-
search activities among students, and whether there are
differences in
the importance of libraries and research activities between
students en-
rolled in different academic disciplines.

With all of those perspectives in mind, the purpose of this study
is to
examine the importance of libraries and research activities
among stu-
dents who attended nine large, public research universities in
2011.
After learning more about the factors predicting the importance
of librar-
ies and research activities among undergraduates at research
universities,
library staff can conduct outreach efforts to impart their value
among
specific groups of students who are less likely to value
libraries, seek to
learn more about why particular groups of students do not
consider li-
braries and research important, and connect with students who
do
value libraries and research activity to leverage their support
amid a cli-
mate of deprioritization and defunding of libraries. With this
information,
librarians can also continue to evolve their libraries' missions
and expand
their services to reach out to undergraduates and encourage
them to un-
derstand the value of libraries and research activities.
METHODS
INSTRUMENT
The Student Experience in the Research University (SERU)
survey is
based at the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University

of
California Berkeley (2011). The SERU survey sampling plan is
a census
scan of the undergraduate experience. All undergraduates
enrolled
spring 2011 who were also enrolled at the end of the prior term
were
included in this web-based questionnaire, with the majority of
commu-
nication occurring by electronic mail. In the SERU survey, each
student
answered a set of core questions and was randomly assigned to
one of
four modules containing items focused specifically on a
research
theme. The core and module questions highlight several
thematic re-
search areas, including campus climate, satisfaction, academic
engage-
ment, community and civic engagement, global knowledge and
skills,
and student life and development. I used survey items I derived
from
a module which included items assessing the importance
students
place upon libraries and research activities on their campuses.
PARTICIPANTS
The SERU survey was administered to 213,160 undergraduate
stu-
dents across nine large, public universities classified by the
Carnegie
Foundation as having very high research activity. The
institutional
level completion response rate for the SERU survey was 38.1%.

Items
used in this analysis were embedded in an academic engagement
mod-
ule of the SERU survey randomly assigned to 20–30% of
students
depending upon the institutions' preferences (n = 16,778). The
major-
ity of students who participated were White and female students
(Table 1).
PROCEDURES
I first conducted descriptive analyses to ascertain students'
beliefs
about the importance of libraries and research activities. I
conducted
all analyses using SPSS 21.0 (IBM Corp., 2012). Next, I
developed factors
from several survey items that conceptualized the importance of
aca-
demic libraries and research activities. I developed additional
variables
through factor analysis, including students' academic
engagement, de-
velopment of library and research skills, satisfaction with
libraries and
research opportunities, and faculty interactions. I next
conducted an
ordinary least squares regression predicting the importance of
libraries
466 K.M. Soria / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39
(2013) 464–470
and research activities. This regression analysis examined the
associations

between the dependent variable and several independent
variables, in-
cluding demographic and socioeconomic variables, college
experience
variables, academic major and career aspirations, academic
achievement,
research participation, and the additional engagement, skills
develop-
ment, satisfaction, and faculty interactions variables developed
through
factor analysis. The goal of this research was to investigate
whether
these variables are associated with students' perceptions of the
impor-
tance of libraries and research activities.
MEASURES
DEMOGRAPHIC
Several demographic variables were used in the models,
including
gender, race/ethnicity, and first-generation status. Additional
demo-
graphic variables included transfer status, family income, and
academic
level (e.g., freshman, sophomore, etc.). All variables were
dummy-
coded (e.g., 1 = Hispanic, 0 = all others; 1 = family income less
than $20,000; 0 = all others). Freshman, sophomores, and
juniors
were target variables with seniors as the common referent for
all of
those categories. The academic levels were determined by the
number
of credits students had earned—this skewed the levels toward

upper-
classmen as many students had transferred in AP credits or
credits
from other institutions. All household income groups were
compared
against students whose families made over $100,000 per year.
The de-
scriptive statistics for these variables are found in Table 1.
LIBRARY AND RESEARCH SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
Students were asked to rate their library and research skills in
four
areas both when they started at the university and their current
ability
(Table 2 has these items listed as used in factor analysis). The
original
scale ranged from 1 to 6 (very poor to excellent). Students'
ratings of
their ability when they started at the university were subtracted
from
their current ability to denote their development or regression of
skills.
COLLEGE EXPERIENCE VARIABLES
I also included students' college experiences as independent
vari-
ables, which included students' residence and participation in
research
activities with or without academic credit or pay. Students'
residence
was dummy-coded and compared against other residency
variables,
Table 2
Summary of factor analysis results for the SERU questionnaire

(n = 16,788).
Item Academic
engagement
(α = .89)
Im
and
(α
Contributed to a class discussion .966 −.
Brought up ideas or concepts from different courses during
class discussions
.931 .
Asked an insightful question in class .909 .
Interacted with faculty during lecture class sessions .724 −.
Had a class in which the professor knew or learned your name
.601 −.
Found a course so interesting you did more work than was
required .511 .
Communicated with a faculty member by email or in person
.433 −.
Learning research methods −.052 .
Pursuing your own research −.060 .
Attending a university with world-class researchers is important
to me −.009 .
Having access to a world-class library collection .172 .
Internet skills −.027 −.
Other research skills .002 .
Library research skills .072 .
Computer skills −.071 −.
Accessibility of library staff −.004 .
Availability of library research materials .008 .
Opportunities for research experience or to produce creative

products −.130 −.
Worked with a faculty member on an activity other than
coursework .043 .
Taken a small research-oriented seminar with faculty −.062 .
Talked with the instructor outside of class about issues and
concepts
derived from a course
.449 −.
which included off-campus residence not with family. The
research par-
ticipation variables were dichotomous (e.g., 0 = did not
participate,
1 = participated). Cumulative grade point average from the fall
semes-
ter was provided by institutions. All of these variables are listed
in
Table 1.
ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT AND FACULTY
INTERACTIONS
I measured students' academic engagement and interactions with
faculty through several survey items. Academic engagement
included
questions about students' engagement in the classroom context
while
faculty interactions included both classroom and outside-of-
class inter-
actions. Table 2 lists these items as used in factor analysis.
LIBRARIES AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
SATISFACTION
Students were asked to rate their satisfaction with opportunities
for

research experiences, accessibility of library staff, and
availability of librar-
y research materials. Table 2 lists these items as used in factor
analysis.
ACADEMIC MAJOR AND CAREER ASPIRATIONS
Participating institutions provided information regarding
students'
academic majors. The academic majors were recoded into more
com-
prehensive categories with students who had undeclared majors
serv-
ing as the referent group. Students were also asked to indicate
the
career they would eventually like to have after graduation.
Students
who selected “I do not know” and “other” served as the common
refer-
ent group for the variables in this category. The descriptive
statistics for
these variables are listed in Table 1.
IMPORTANCE OF LIBRARIES AND RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES
Four survey items captured the level of importance students
placed
upon libraries and research activities. These items asked
students to rate
the importance of having access to a world-class library,
pursuing their
own research and learning research activities, and attending a
universi-
ty with world-class researchers. Table 3 presents the descriptive
statis-

tics regarding the number and percentage of students responding
to
each component of the original scales of the items.
FACTOR ANALYSIS
To obtain factors from the survey items, I conducted a factor
analysis
on 21 items with oblique rotation (Promax). The Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin
portance of libraries
research
= .79)
Library and research
skills development
(α = .75)
Satisfaction with libraries
and research opportunities
(α = .73)
Faculty
interactions
(α = .74)
010 −.018 −.025 −.194
032 −.027 −.072 −.098
050 .005 −.068 −.111
067 −.002 .018 .208
119 .027 .096 .203
234 −.007 −.049 .129
106 .010 .120 .416
853 .023 −.043 .085
835 −.054 −.114 .185

677 −.030 .127 .005
637 .054 .148 −.164
045 .808 −.099 .023
071 .774 .045 .038
037 .758 .106 −.125
069 .680 −.070 .109
016 −.028 .917 −.087
047 .008 .902 −.121
017 −.021 .590 .372
016 .021 −.046 .754
134 .021 −.052 .719
021 −.009 .040 .476
Table 3
The importance of libraries and research activities among
undergraduates.
Importance of Libraries and Research Activities n %
Importance of having access to a world-class library collection
Not important 401 2.4
Not very important 1222 7.3
Somewhat important 3188 19.0
Important 5375 32.0
Very important 4148 24.7
Essential 2445 14.6
Importance of pursuing your own research
Important 4291 25.6
Essential 1333 7.9

Importance of learning research methods
Important 5476 32.6
Essential 1562 9.3
Attending a university with world-class researchers is important
to me
Strongly disagree 323 1.9
Disagree 878 5.2
Disagree somewhat 1585 9.4
Agree somewhat 4695 28.0
Agree 5932 35.4
Strongly agree 3366 20.1
(2013) 464–470
measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis (KMO
= .86).
Bartlett's test of sphericity, χ2 (210) = 156712.77, p b .001,
indicated
that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA.
Five com-
ponents had an eigenvalue over Kaiser's criterion of one and
explained
63.1% of the variance. Given the large sample size, Kaiser's
criteria for
components, and the convergence of a scree plot that showed
inflections
that justify retaining five components, the final analysis
retained the fol-
lowing factors: importance of libraries and research activities,
academic

engagement, library and research skills development,
satisfaction with li-
braries and research opportunities, and faculty interactions.
Table 1 pro-
vides details regarding the ranges of the factors and Table 2
demonstrates the factor loadings after rotation in a pattern
matrix, with
factor loadings over .40 in bold. I computed the factor scores
using the re-
gression method and they were saved as standardized scores
with a
mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. All of the factors
had ac-
ceptable to good internal consistency (α ≥ .73) (George &
Mallery,
2003).
RESULTS
The descriptive analysis suggests 71.3% of students considered
having access to world-class libraries important, very important,
or es-
sential (Table 3). Additionally, 47.9% of students believed
pursuing
their own research was important, very important, or essential.
Slightly
over three-fifths (60.6%) of students rated learning research
methods
as important, very important, or essential. Additionally, the
majority of
students—83.5%—somewhat agreed to strongly agreed
attending a
world-class research university was important to them.
I next utilized an ordinary least squares regression to examine
factors

associated with the importance undergraduates place upon
academic
libraries and research activities. I tested assumptions of
multicollinearity,
homoscedasticity, linearity, and independent/normal errors.
Tests of the
multiple regression assumptions indicated no multicollinearity
among
the independent variables, with tolerance levels above zero and
VIF statis-
tics below 10. In testing homoscedasticity, random scatter and
variabil-
ity in scatterplots of standardized residuals against the
standardized
predicted values were apparent. A histogram of standardized
residuals
and normal probability plots comparing the distribution of
standardized
residuals to a normal distribution suggested normal
distributions. Exam-
inations of matrix scatterplots suggested the relationships
between the
predictor and outcome variables were linear. The residual errors
were in-
dependent and the Durbin–Watson value was 1.975 (Durbin &
Watson,
1951).
The regression model predicting the importance students place
upon libraries and research activity was statistically significant,
F(44,
16,736) = 111.82, p b .001, and the model explains 22.7% of the
vari-
ance in the importance of libraries and research activities (Table
4).
With regards to demographic factors, the model suggests female

under-
graduates are significantly (p b .05) less likely to place
importance upon
libraries and research as male undergraduates. Additionally,
Hispanic
students, Asian students, international students, and students
from an
unknown or other racial identity place significantly (p b .05)
more im-
portance upon libraries and research than their peers. Students
from
lower income families (total family income less than $49,999
per
year) placed significantly greater (p b .05) value upon libraries
and re-
search compared with their peers from higher income families.
Transfer
students were significantly (p b .05) more likely to perceive
libraries
and research activities as important than native students while
students
at freshman, sophomore, and junior academic levels placed
significantly
greater (p b .05) importance on libraries and research compared
with
seniors (the referent group of students).
Students' grade point average was positively associated with the
im-
portance they place upon libraries and research activities.
Students who
had participated in all types of research activities—including
enrolling in
research-oriented courses and assisting faculty with research for
pay,
course credit, and as a volunteer—were significantly (p b .05)

more
likely than their peers who had not participated in research to
perceive
libraries and research activities as important. Examinations of
the stan-
dardized coefficients suggests that the research activity with the
stron-
gest predictive value in this model was enrolling in a student
research
course (β = .066), followed by assisting faculty in research as a
volun-
teer (β = .053) and assisting faculty in research with course
credit
(β = .033), although those effect sizes were small.
Students who aspired to careers in engineering or computer pro-
gramming, law, medicine or health-related professions,
psychology or
helping professions, and research/science professions placed
signifi-
cantly (p b .05) higher importance of libraries and research, on
average,
than their peers. Examinations of the standardized coefficients
suggest
that career aspirations in research/science and medicine or
health-
related professions were the strongest predictors of all the
career
choices (β = .181 and β = .125 respectively). Students enrolled
in an
arts or humanities, business, education, and health or physical
fitness
majors placed a significantly (p b .05) lower importance on
academic li-
braries and research than their referent groups (undeclared and
other

majors). Only students enrolled in social sciences had
significantly
(p b .05) higher importance of libraries and research compared
to stu-
dents enrolled in other majors.
Finally, the four additional variables created through factor
analysis—
academic engagement, research and library skills development,
satis-
faction with libraries and research opportunities, and faculty
interac-
tions—were positively and significantly (p b .05) associated
with the
importance students placed upon libraries and research.
Examinations
of the standardized residuals suggest the factor with the
strongest rela-
tionship was satisfaction with libraries and research
opportunities
(β = .194), followed by students' academic engagement (β =
.157).
In examining all of the standardized coefficients in the model,
the five
most important predictors were students' satisfaction with
libraries,
their interest in holding a research or scientist profession, their
academ-
ic engagement, their interest working in a medical or health-
related
profession, and their academic level (particularly freshmen and
sopho-
mores). Although the effect sizes of these variables were
relatively
small, they are the areas which may hold the most potential
interest

among libraries.
Table 4
Regression analysis predicting the importance of libraries and
research activities.
Predictor B SE β
(Constant) −.636⁎⁎⁎ .053
Female −.081⁎⁎⁎ .015 −.040
American Indian or Native American −.017 .107 −.001
African American .032 .033 .007
Hispanic .189⁎⁎⁎ .023 .060
Asian .291⁎⁎⁎ .020 .106
International .357⁎⁎⁎ .036 .071
Other or unknown race or ethnicity .135⁎⁎⁎ .033 .028
Transfer student .190⁎⁎⁎ .021 .068
Freshman .366⁎⁎⁎ .027 .131
Sophomore .302⁎⁎⁎ .021 .123
Junior .194⁎⁎⁎ .018 .085
Household income b $19,999 .063⁎⁎ .024 .020
Household income $20,000–$49,999 .047⁎ .020 .017
Household income $50,000–$79,999 .022 .019 .008
Household income $80,000–$99,999 .008 .023 .002
Lived in a fraternity or sorority −.038 .035 −.008
Lived in a university residence hall or apartment .007 .019 .003
Lived with family −.023 .031 −.005
Cumulative grade point average .050⁎⁎⁎ .013 .027
Enrolled in at least one student research course .135⁎⁎⁎ .016
.066
Enrolled in at least one independent study course .062⁎⁎ .019
.025
Assisted faculty in research with course credit .088⁎⁎⁎ .021
.033

Assisted faculty in research for pay without course credit
.097⁎⁎⁎ .025 .029
Assisted faculty in research as a volunteer without course
credit
.149⁎⁎⁎ .022 .053
Artistic or creative professions −.022 .029 −.006
Business or finance professions −.010 .027 −.004
Education profession .024 .033 .006
Engineering or computer programming professions .137⁎⁎⁎ .030
.045
Law profession .166⁎⁎⁎ .031 .043
Medicine or health-related professions .298⁎⁎⁎ .025 .125
Psychology or helping professions .153⁎⁎⁎ .037 .033
Researcher or scientist profession .755⁎⁎⁎ .034 .181
Science, technology, engineering, or math major −.011 .024
−.005
Arts or humanities major −.058⁎ .026 −.022
Social sciences major .058⁎ .029 .019
Business major −.126⁎⁎⁎ .030 −.042
Education major −.303⁎⁎⁎ .062 −.036
Health or physical fitness major −.279⁎⁎⁎ .031 −.078
Academic engagement .157⁎⁎⁎ .008 .157
Development of library and research skills .107⁎⁎⁎ .007 .107
Satisfaction with libraries and research opportunities .194⁎⁎⁎
.007 .194
Faculty interactions .062⁎⁎⁎ .008 .062
R2 22.7%
Note.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001

(2013) 464–470
LIMITATIONS
One limitation of this study lies in the potential for bias due to
survey
non-response. Additionally, students' experiences at large,
public re-
search universities were only captured. The particular
institutional con-
text may limit generalizability to other institutions, as students
may
have increased access to research courses or research
opportunities
with faculty compared to students enrolled in other types of
institutions
(e.g., community colleges and private liberal arts colleges).
Additionally,
limited aspects of the importance of libraries and research
activities
were assessed; researchers are encouraged to seek more nuanced
infor-
mation that can be used to understand the importance students
place
upon their libraries and research activities. All analyses are
correlational,
not causational, so investigators are encouraged to dig deeper
into these
results to discover the underlying character of these observed
relation-
ships. Qualitative research can yield new insights into the ways
in which
students' perceive libraries and research as important. Finally,
the
analysis explains 22.7% of the importance of libraries and
research
activities—additional factors not included in this study should

be inves-
tigated to determine the factors that predict the importance of
libraries
and research activities among undergraduates.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The descriptive results of this study suggest nearly three-
quarters of
students enrolled at the research universities in this sample
consider
libraries to be an important, very important, or essential factor
for
them. This new knowledge validates the relative importance of
libraries
among many of students who select to attend research
universities.
Additionally, the results suggest nearly two-thirds of students
believed
learning research methods was important, very important, or
essential
while less than half believed pursuing their own research was
important,
very important, or essential. Finally, slightly over four-fifths of
students
agreed attending a world-class research university was
important, very
important, or essential to them. While those numbers are overall
encour-
aging, given the institutional context, it is somewhat
discouraging that
less than half of students are interested in pursuing their own
research
and not all students place importance upon libraries and
research
activities. An investigation into some of the factors that might
predict

the importance students place upon libraries and research
activities is
therefore warranted.
The inferential results of this study suggest several factors are
posi-
tively associated with the importance students place upon
academic li-
braries and research activities at research universities. These
areas are
among those that hold the greatest potential for library staff to
leverage
in garnering support for ongoing activities, future development
and
growth, and increased prioritization within the larger
organization.
For example, library staff may be more successful in reaching
out to His-
panic, Asian, international, and male students in fundraising or
develop-
ment efforts because these students place greater importance
upon
libraries and research than their peers. Additionally, transfer
students,
students from lower-income backgrounds, and students who
were
newer to the institution also perceive libraries and research as
more im-
portant than their peers. In seeking ambassadors for library
support,
these students may be some of the greatest advocates to impart
the im-
portance of libraries in positions such as peer tutoring or peer
research
support. Students of these demographic backgrounds may also
prove

useful representatives of librarians' efforts to gain institutional
recogni-
tion and support from administrative officials, state legislatures,
or
policymakers. Furthermore, admissions offices may see success
in
highlighting libraries and research activities when promoting
their uni-
versities to these particular students.
Conversely, the presence of some student groups who view
libraries
and research activities as significantly less important than their
peers
beckons future inquiries into the reasons these students do not
value
libraries and research with as much importance as their peers.
For
example, females and students enrolled in business, education,
arts/
humanities, and health/physical fitness majors perceived
libraries
as significantly less important than males and students enrolled
in
other majors. These particular groups may represent areas of
invest-
ment for librarians seeking to learn how to garner long-term
support
among a wider alumni base that may not traditionally view
libraries
and research activities as important to their higher education
experience.
It is perhaps not surprising that students who participated in re-
search with faculty or enrolled in research classes considered
libraries

and research more important than students who did not
participate in
research activities or classes. The results of the analysis suggest
students
who are interested in law, engineering or computer
programming,
medical, psychology, scientist, or research professions believed
libraries
and research activities are significantly more important than
their
peers. Although this makes sense given the extensive amount of
re-
search professionals in these areas may conduct as part of their
educa-
tional preparation and daily practice, students interested in
pursuing
alternate professions may also engage in research as part of
academic
preparation or while employed in their professions. Students
who are
not aware of the potentially important role of research in their
profes-
sions may not take advantage of opportunities to hone their
research
(2013) 464–470
and information skills or undertake research opportunities in
classes or
with faculty while undergraduates.
Finally, it is encouraging that students who have developed
library
and research skills place greater value upon libraries and

research activi-
ties, as do students who are more satisfied with libraries and
research op-
portunities. Librarians who work to increase students' library
and
research skills through workshops or course-integrated
instruction may
find students value libraries more as a consequence (Bodi,
2002). Student
satisfaction with libraries was also significant in predicting the
extent to
which they feel libraries and research activities are important to
them.
Students who are academically engaged and students who
interact fre-
quently with their faculty also viewed libraries and research as
more im-
portant than their peers; this finding suggests the potential
importance of
libraries integration in classrooms and collaborations with
faculty.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ultimately, efforts to understand—or impart—the value of
libraries and
research activities among undergraduate students should not be
under
the sole purview of academic library staff; instead, multiple
campus part-
nerships and collaborations should be undertaken to both
examine and
raise the importance of libraries and research activities among
college stu-
dents. Given the important role libraries play in students'
admission deci-

sions (Lombard, 2012; Reynolds, 2007), librarians,
administrators, and
campus partners in admissions offices can start early by
reaching out to
prospective undergraduates and communicating the ways in
which li-
braries contribute to students' academic success (Oakleaf, 2010;
Soria
et al., 2013). Dodsworth (1998) and Duke and Tucker (2007)
suggested
that librarians create aggressive marketing plans to promote
their collec-
tions, services, and facilities—all of which can serve a larger
purpose of
stimulating demand for the use of the libraries, building good
relation-
ships with clientele, and accentuating the value of libraries.
This study
suggests some groups of students may respond to those library
marketing
messages more readily than others.
Promotional messages can continue as students progress
throughout
their undergraduate careers; for example, several researchers
have
outlined outreach roles that librarians can take to promote their
services,
including by assisting first-year students in freshman seminar
courses or
in orientation (Brown, Weingart, Johnson, & Dance, 2004;
Johnson,
McCord, & Walter, 2003)—ideal locations within which
librarians can
impart the value of libraries and research activities as students
begin

their academic careers. Librarians can work with campus
partners to
craft messages for sophomores, juniors, and seniors who are
making
important academic major and career decisions and let them
know
about the career resources available in their collections (e.g.,
“how to
choose a major” guides). In describing a partnership at the
University
of Buffalo in between academic libraries and a career services
center,
for example, Hollister (2005) suggested integrated library
instruction,
information literacy workshops, and library reference hours in a
career
resource center can benefit students, librarians, and career
services per-
sonnel alike.
While many of the students of color in this sample valued
libraries and
research activities as more important than their peers, African
American
and Native American students were two groups of students who
did not
significantly value libraries and research more or less than their
peers.
Collaborations with multicultural student services offices may
enhance
awareness behind these racial differences in the value of
libraries and re-
search (Love & Edwards, 2009). These collaborations can also
be used to
build firmer connections between libraries and student services,
leading

to potentially greater support of libraries among undergraduate
students
who receive multiple opportunities to interact with librarians,
utilize li-
brary support services, and receive greater access to collections.
In this study, several student groups emerged as “low-hanging
fruit”
which librarians could pluck to champion the value of libraries
and
research; specifically, some of these groups included those who
engaged
in research courses or assisted faculty with research; were
interested in
law, engineering, computer, medical, psychology, and
researcher/scientist
professions; and were enrolled in social sciences majors.
Librarians may
wish to spend time exploring why students interested in other
profes-
sions do not value libraries and research activities as much as
their
peers. Furthermore, librarians may wish to connect with
students inter-
ested in other professions to impart how libraries and research
activities
can benefit them not only as undergraduates, but also as means
of gaining
valuable research skills they can use in any profession. Peer
research
tutors can also play a key role in helping libraries staff to
impart the
long-term value of libraries and research activities among other
college
students (Deese-Roberts & Keating, 2000).

Librarians can also communicate the importance of engagement
in
research opportunities and the research resources they provide
to stu-
dents, especially to students who do not have opportunities to
engage
in formal research partnerships or take research classes—
students who
in this study did not place as much important upon libraries and
research
activities as students who engaged in research. There is work
that librar-
ians can conduct in collaboration with other campus services or
units to
enhance the value research activities; for example, librarians
can make
concerted efforts to engage academic units whose students who
may
not consider libraries and research important and place a special
empha-
sis on partnering with faculty (Sanborn, 2005), holding library
research
workshops in classes (Emmons & Martin, 2002), leading tours
of libraries
services (Kasbohm, Schoen, & Dubaj, 2006), or recruiting those
students
to become research assistants or library peer mentors (Deese-
Roberts &
Keating, 2000). While none of those activities are particularly
innovative
at this point, outcomes associated with those activities have
focused on
students' acquisition of information literacy skills or academic
success
as opposed to increasing the importance of libraries and
research activi-

ties among students who participate.
Undergraduate students may lack awareness of the
comprehensive
value of libraries beyond places to study or access collections;
yet, librar-
ians may also neglect to share their comprehensive value and
worth to
undergraduates as well. Lindauer (1998) suggested the teaching
func-
tions of libraries have gained renewed importance as they
directly sup-
port students' skill development in areas such as general
education,
critical thinking, computer literacy, and lifelong learning.
Librarians
can expand their teaching roles to reach more broadly across the
uni-
versity to convey their value to the academic enterprise. In
taking
these steps at research universities in particular, librarians can
craft dis-
tinct messages to undergraduates and encourage them to take
advan-
tage of research opportunities and resources, inform them about
the
value of attending research universities, and convey the
important
role research universities—and their libraries—have had in
advancing
research and society.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study suggests libraries and research
activities are

considered important, very important, or essential by the
majority of
students who attend research universities; however, not all
students
consider libraries and research activities important, so future
research
should be conducted to deduce why some students do not value
librar-
ies and research as highly as others. A variety of factors are
positively as-
sociated with the importance of libraries and research activities
among
undergraduates at research universities—including several areas
librar-
ians can potentially influence. Librarians can use these findings
to lever-
age continued support among specific groups of students while
at the
same time seeking to understand how they can promote
libraries' ben-
efits and enhance their value in the eyes of undergraduates.
REFERENCES
Association of Research Libraries (2012). Library expenditures
as a percent of total uni-
versity expenditures v. total university expenditures, 1982–
2009. Retrieved from
http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/eg/index.shtml
http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/eg/index.shtml
(2013) 464–470
Bodi, S. (2002). How do we bridge the gap between what we

teach and what they do?
Some thoughts on the place of questions in the process of
research. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 28(3), 109–114.
Bridges, L. M. (2008). Who is not using the library? A
comparison of undergraduate dis-
ciplines and library use. portal: Libraries and the Academy,
8(2), 187–196.
Brown, A. G., Weingart, S., Johnson, J. R. J., & Dance, B.
(2004). Librarians don't bite:
Assessing library orientation for freshman. Reference Services
Review, 32(4),
394–403.
Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California
Berkeley (2011). Student
experience in the research university (SERU) project and
consortium. Retrieved from
http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/seru/index.htm
Clemes, M.D., Gan, C. E. C., & Kao, T. -H. (2008). University
student satisfaction: An empir-
ical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2),
292–325.
Crowley, B. (1996). Redefining the status of the librarian in
higher education. College and
Research Libraries, 57(2), 113–121.
Deese-Roberts, S., & Keating, K. (2000). Integrating a library
strategies peer tutoring pro-
gram. Research Strategies, 17(2–3), 223–229.
Denham, R. (1995). Strategic planning: Creating the future.

Feliciter, 41, 38–43.
Dodsworth, E. (1998). Marketing academic libraries. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship,
24(4), 320–322.
Duke, L. M., & Tucker, T. (2007). How to develop a marketing
plan for an academic library.
Technical Services Quarterly, 25(1), 51–68.
Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial
correlation in least squares regression,
II. Biometrika, 38, 159–179.
Emmons, M., & Martin, W. (2002). Engaging conversation:
Evaluating the contribution of
library instruction to the quality of student research. College
and Research Libraries,
63(6), 545–560.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by
step: A simple guide and refer-
ence. 11.0 update (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Grallo, J.D., Chalmers, M., & Baker, P. G. (2012). How do I get
a campus ID? The other role
of the academic library in student retention and success. The
Reference Librarian,
53(2), 182–193.
Haddow, G. (2013). Academic library use and student retention:
A quantitative analysis.
Library and Information Science Research, 35, 127–136.
Haddow, G., & Joseph, J. (2010). Loans, logins, and lasting the
course: Academic library

use and student retention. Australian Academic and Research
Libraries, 41(4),
233–244.
Hagel, P., Horn, A., Owen, S., & Currie, M. (2012). “How can
we help?” The contribution of
university libraries to student retention. Australian Academic
and Research Libraries,
43(3), 214–230.
Hardesty, L. (2000). Do we need academic libraries? A position
paper of the Association of
College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Last modified January
21, 2000. Retrieved
from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/doweneedacad
emic
Hiller, S. (2002). How different are they? A comparison by
academic area of library use,
priorities, and information needs at the University of
Washington. Issues in Science
and Technology Librarianship, 33 (Retrieved from
http://www.istl.org/02-winter/
article1.html)
Hollister, C. (2005). Bringing information literacy to career
services. Reference Services
Review, 33(1), 104–111.
IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version
21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Johnson, C. M., McCord, S. K., & Walter, S. (2003).
Instructional outreach across the curric-
ulum. The Reference Librarian, 39(82), 19–37.

Kasbohm, K., Schoen, D., & Dubaj, M. (2006). Launching the
library mystery tour: A library
component for the “first-year experience. College &
Undergraduate Libraries, 13(2),
35–46.
Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The role of the academic
library in promoting student
engagement in learning. College and Research Libraries, 64(4),
256–282.
Lindauer, B. G. (1998). Defining and measuring the library's
impact on campuswide out-
comes. College and Research Libraries, 59(6), 546–570.
Lombard, E. (2012). The role of the academic library in college
choice. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 237–241.
Love, E., & Edwards, M. B. (2009). Forging inroads between
libraries and academic, mul-
ticultural, and student services. Reference Services Review,
37(1), 20–29.
McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2001). University
experiences, the student–college rela-
tionship, and alumni support. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 10(3), 21–44.
Oakleaf, M. (2010). The value of academic libraries: A
comprehensive research review and re-
port. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research
Libraries.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Qun, J. G. (1997). Prevalence and

reasons for university library
usage. Library Review, 46(6), 411–420.
Pritchard, S. M. (1996). Determining quality in academic
libraries. Library Trends, 44(3),
572–594.
Reynolds, G. L. (2007). The impact of facilities on recruitment
and retention of students.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 135, 63–80.
Sanborn, L. (2005). Perspectives on…improving library
instruction: Faculty collaboration.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(5), 477–481.
Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2013). Library use
and undergraduate student out-
comes: New evidence for students' retention and academic
success. portal: Libraries
and the Academy, 13(2), 147–164.
Weiner, S. (2008). The contribution of the library to the
reputation of a university. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(1), 3–13.
Whitmire, E. (1999). Racial differences in the academic library
experiences of undergrad-
uates. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 25(1), 33–37.
Whitmire, E. (2001). The relationship between undergraduates'
background characteris-
tics and college experiences and their academic library use.
College and Research
Libraries, 62(6), 528–540.
Whitmire, E. (2003). Cultural diversity and undergraduates'

academic library use. Journal
of Academic of Librarianship, 29(3), 148–161.
Wong, S. H. R., & Webb, T. D. (2011). Uncovering meaningful
correlation between student
academic performance and library material usage. College and
Research Libraries,
72(4), 361–370.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0005
http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/seru/index.htm

http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/doweneedacad
emic
http://www.istl.org/02-winter/article1.html
http://www.istl.org/02-winter/article1.html

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-
0/rf0175Factors Predicting the Importance of Libraries and
Research Activities for
UndergraduatesMethodsInstrumentParticipantsProceduresMeasu
resDemographicLibrary and research skills developmentCollege
experience variablesAcademic engagement and faculty
interactionsLibraries and research opportunities
satisfactionAcademic major and career aspirationsImportance of
libraries and research activitiesFactor
analysisResultsLimitationsDiscussion and
ImplicationsRecommendationsConclusionReferences
MIS 3376, Spring 2018 (Grimes)
Assignment 1Assignment 1: Who uses databases?
In this assignment, you will identify three companies and think

critically about how they use databases to enable their business.
After completing this assignment, you should be able to identify
the types of data a company might be interested in storing, and
how it is related to other data. You should also begin to see
complexities in identifying how data is stored.
1. Choose three of the categories below and identify one
specific company, organization, or service from each.
Banking/Finance
Retail
Education
Entertainment
Examples
Banks
Investment firms
Insurance
Physical stores
Online stores
Convenience stores
Grade schools
Colleges
Training seminars
Online learning
TV, music, and movies Streaming services
Television networks
Gaming
Food Services
Healthcare
Service
Transportation
Examples
Restaurants
Groceries
Farming
Food production

Doctors, dentists, etc.
Hospitals/urgent care
Pharmacies
Government svcs.
Postal service
Construction
Lawn care
Auto manufacturing
Taxi services
Airlines
Shipping
2. For each company, identify two entity types they need to
keep track of.
3. For each type of data, identify five attributes for each entity
type you identified in #2
4. Create a data dictionary showing the column names, table
names, data type, and length for the entities in #2. See page 15
in your book for an example.
5. Draw an ERD showing the relationship between the two
entities. Include the cardinality and participation constraints.
You do not need to show the attributes in the ERD. It is easiest
to make these drawings in software such as PowerPoint or
Visio.
6. For each entity, provide 3-7 instances using fictional data.
Create and populate a table for each entity that includes sample
values that demonstrate the participation and cardinality.
7. Write out the business rules that are presented in your ERD.
The business rules should describe the entities, their attributes,
domain constraints (optional, but should be included if needed),
cardinality, and participation constraints. You may either write
this in long form or use bullet points.
Name your file Lastname_Firstname_A1.docx (i.e.,
Grimes_Mark_A1.docx)
and upload to Blackboard by 10:00 PM CST on Monday,
February 5Notes
1. Do not pick multiple companies from one category, and do

not use the same company for multiple categories.
2. Do not use the same (or very similar) entities for every
company. For example, do not just create a relationship of
“Customers purchase products” for every company. Not cool
and won’t count.
3. Use attributes that companies would realistically have access
to. For example, most retailers would not know (or need to
know) a customer’s weight.
4. Some companies fit in to multiple categories – i.e.,
Walgreens could be considered both “retail” and “healthcare”.
Choose the category that matches the aspect you are describing.
5. You may choose a “service” rather than a company – for
example, Amazon Prime Video is a service owned by Amazon,
but would be an acceptable service.
6. I anticipate each company will take approximately 1.5-2
pages – so your final deliverable should be around 5-6 pages.
7. If you have read ahead or have database experience and want
to demonstrate your advanced knowledge that is fine – however,
artificial keys and foreign keys do not count as attributes for
this exercise.
8. Please put some thought into the companies you select and do
not just go with obvious/easy choices. For example, “Amazon”
is likely the first e-commerce company you thought of – and I
don’t want everyone to pick Amazon. This is both very boring
to grade and does not encourage you to think critically. You
don’t need to pick a company that is super obscure, but try to
pick something interesting. There are plenty of well-known
companies to go around.

Assignment 1 Example
1. Company #1: Mark’s Horse Hostel (Service)
2. Entity types: Horses, Customers
3. Attributes:
Horses (Name, Weight, Gender, Color, Owner Name)
Customers (Name, Phone, Address, Email, Balance)
4. Data Dictionary
Column
Table
Data Type
Length
Name
Horses
Text
30
Weight
Horses
Number
16
Gender
Horses
Text
1
Color
Horses
Text
10
Owner Name
Horses
Text
30
Name
Customers
Text
30
Phone

Customers
Text
12
Address
Customers
Text
50
Email
Customers
Text
50
Balance
Customers
Number
16
5. ERD
6. Tables
Horses
Name
Weight
Gender
Color
Owner Name
Amy
700
F
Brown
Norman Johnson
Dave
1200
M
Brown
Mark Grimes
Ed

1000
M
Black
Richard Scamell
Sarah
1500
F
Red
Mark Grimes
Tom
1100
M
Black
Richard Scamell
Customers
Name
Phone
Address
Email
Balance
Mark Grimes
281-777-6666
40 Wallaby Way
[email protected]
2000
Norman Johnson
281-666-7777
41 Wallaby Way
3000
Richard Scamell
281-555-9999
42 Wallaby Way
[email protected]
2000

7. Business rules
Mark’s Horse Hostel is a business that cares for horses owned
by customers. All customers must own at least one horse, but
some customers have many horses. All horses kept at Mark’s
Horse Hostel are owned by exactly one customer. Due to size
limitations of the stables, all horses must weigh less than 2,000
pounds. A horse’s color may be specified as Black, White, Dark
Brown, Light Brown, Red, Yellow, or Other. Customers are not
required to provide their email address.
Or you can use bullets:
· All customers have at least one horse
· A customer may have multiple horses
· A horse is owned by exactly one customer
· All horses must weigh less than 2,000 pounds
· Horse color is classified as Black, White, Dark Brown, Light
Brown, Red, Yellow, or Other
· Customer’s email address is optional
Notes about the assignment:
You may noticed that I have not included attributes such as
“CustomerID” or “HorseID” that would make for good
(artificial) primary keys. If you want to include something like
that it is fine, but do not count that as one of your five
attributes – list things that are meaningful to describing the
entity instances. The point of this assignment is to critically
think about what types of data companies need to store to do
their job. We will deal with key values and their relationships
more in future assignments.
For the length of text attributes, put what you think a reasonable
number of characters would be. For example, for gender we can
just store “M” or “F”. For Number values, the length is the

number of bits – so 16 means 2^16 = 65,536 (any number
between 0 and 65,535 will fit). You can just use 16 for the
length of numbers, unless you want to be more precise in your
answer.
I provided some domain constraints in the business rules – I
would encourage you to do the same where it is appropriate
(You don’t need a constraint for every attribute, but if there are
places a domain constraint would be beneficial you should
mention it).
You can make the ERD directly in word (using the shapes on
the “Insert” tab), or make it in PowerPoint, Visio, etc. using the
drawing tools. There are several ways to save your drawings as
an image you can insert into the word document, one easy way
is to take a screenshot (Google or ask a friend if you need help
with this).

The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470Con.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470Con.docx

Similar to The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470Con.docx (20)

More from oreo10

More from oreo10 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470Con.docx