Ic 8 lac-10242010_final

Still Bound for Disappointment? Another Look at Faculty and Library Journal Collections

Library Assessment Conference 2010Jennifer Rutner, Assessment & Marketing Librarian, Columbia University Libraries

Jim Self, Director, Management Information Services, University of Virginia Libraries

2006

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?

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

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

2009

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?

Data + Methodology

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.

LibQUAL+

The Infamous IC-8

“The print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work.”

Columbia Faculty 2009

Columbia Library Staff 2009

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-54

5

6

7

8

9

LibQual+ 2009, Columbia University Library Staff

ARL Libraries 2009

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 - 54

5

6

7

8

9

10

Figure 3: LibQUAL+ 2009, ARL Libraries Faculty

ARL Libraries 2009: IC8

Have perceptions changed?

2006 2007 2008 20094

5

6

7

8

9

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

Analysis

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.

Journals and Overall Satisfaction

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 05

6

7

8

9

Figure 8: LibQUAL+ 2009, Correlation of Faculty Satisfaction with Journal Collections (IC-8) and Overall Library Service, 21 Libraries

r =0.71

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

What else should we be watching?

IC1 IC2 IC3 IC4 IC5 IC6 IC7 IC8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

2006 (n=37 )

2007 (n=19)

2008 (n=14)

2009 (n=21)

Figure 6: LibQUAL+ 2006-09, Information Control Adequacy Gaps Over Time

Follow-up at Columbia

What do our faculty say?

Columbia Discipline

Phone Interviews Conducted

N for LibQUAL+ 2009

2009 IC-8 Departmental Mean Adequacy Gap

Architecture 5 8 -1.375Business 6 8 -0.125Computer Science 4 3 -0.333Engineering 4 12 -0.583History 0 22 -0.318Humanities 5 60 -0.379Math 1 4 -0.750

What do our faculty say?

• Support• Search and online access• Collection gaps• Coverage• Work-around• Quick list• Resources• Print vs. Electronic

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

What do our faculty say?

Print vs. Electronic

“A few years ago, I wouldn’t have said that. But, I guess things have changed.”

What do our faculty say?

Remote Access

(((crickets)))

Conclusions

What do faculty want?

Complete online coverage of a title, in one place, with PDF downloads.

Great service, online and in-person.

jenrutner@columbia.eduself@virginia.edu

Special Thanks

Shanna Jaggars, Quantitative ConsultantBecca Chovnick, Assessment Intern

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonk/48373052/