Report on Results of Library Use and User Satisfaction Survey at

Stanford, May 2003

Submitted, August 1, 2003, by Anthony M. Angiletta,

Chris Bourg and Ron Nakao

Introduction

• Last survey of L&IR done in 1987

• All-campus survey of 17,295 Faculty, Graduate and Professional Students, Post-docs/RAs and Undergradraduates

• Response rate: 26.4%

Chart 1: Importance or Value of E-Mail, 1987 and 2003

12% 70%

83% 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1987

2003

E-mail Importance:Faculty 1987 & 2003

High/Highest Value

Low/Lowest Value

Table 1. Participation Rates in All-Campus Libraries

Survey, 2003

Category Total Population Respondents Response Rate

Faculty 1,714 372 21.7%

Graduate/Professional Students

7,536 2,394 31.8%

Undergraduates 6,731 1,485 22.0%

Post-Docs/RAs 1,314 315 24.0%

All 17,295 4,566 26.4%

Survey purposes

• To identify levels and patterns of use of libraries and information resources

• To identify levels of satisfaction with libraries and information resources

• To identify user-based priorities for libraries and information resources

Summary Findings: Use Patterns and User Satisfaction

• High level of satisfaction with library services, collections and staff

Chart 2: Library Services Satisfaction

86%

2%

75%

3%

81%

3%

81%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Faculty Graduate Undergrad All

Library Services Satisfaction

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

Question: How SATISFIED are you overall with… library services?

Chart 3: Library Collections Satisfaction

78%

3%

71%

3%

77%

3%

73%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%80%

Faculty Graduate Undergrad All

Library Collections Satisfaction

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

Question: How SATISFIED are you overall with… library collections?

Chart 4: Satisfaction with Library Staff

92%

2%

72%

3%

76%

3%

74%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Faculty Graduate Undergrad All

Library Staff Satisfaction

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are overall with…Library staff?

Summary Findings: Use Patterns and User Satisfaction

• “Four-walled” library remains relevant

Chart 5: “Four-Walled Library": Physical Resources

Importance of Library Physical Resources

Very Important 64%

Important 22%

Not Important3%

Not at all Important

1%

Neutral10%

Question: How important are the following sources of information for your work?Choice: Stanford Library physical resources (books, journals, etc.)?

Chart 6: “Four-Walled Library: Visits

In-Person Visits to Libraries

Once p/Qtr8%

Once p/month21%

Twice p/yr or less3%

Once p/week33%

Several p/wk or more35%

Question: How OFTEN do you make use of the Stanford library resources in the following ways:Choice: Visit one of the libraries in person

Summary Findings: Use Patterns and User Satisfaction

•The “book” remains important

Chart 7: Importance of Books: Faculty

By division, % of faculty respondents indicating books are "very important" or "important" vs. "not at all important“ or "not important"

80% 0%

98%0%

75% 0%

42% 24%

77% 11%

91% 0%

73% 10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Business

Humanities

Law

Medicine

SciEng

SocSci

All

Import of Books: Faculty

Important or Very Important

Not Important or Not at All Important

Chart 8: Importance of Books to Graduate/Professional Students

48% 29%

98% 1%

61% 24%

40% 33%

67% 14%

87% 6%

71% 14%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Business

Humanities

Law

Medicine

SciEng

SocSci

All

Import of Books: Grad/Prof Students

Important or Very Important

Not Important or Not Important at All

Summary Findings (cont’d)

• Hours count

--77% Faculty satisfied with hours during academic year

--less than 50% satisfied with Intersession hours

--24% dissatisfied

Chart 9: Hours : Evenings and Weekends

Hours: Evenings and Weekends

77%

67%

57%

74%

65%

25%

13%18%

15%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Satisfied

Neutral

Unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with hours during the periods indicated?

Chart 10: Hours Satisfaction: Intersession

Intersession hours

50%

41%

51%

62%

46%

24%29%

23%

15%13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Satisfied

Neutral

Unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with hours during the periods indicated?

Summary Findings (cont’d)

• Hours count: Winter Intersession, 2002-2003

--26% of Faculty and 24% of Grad Students affected by Winter Intersession closure

--84 faculty and 541 grad students made comments on Winter Intersession closing

Chart 11: Effect of Winter Intersession Closures, 2002-2003

Question: Were you affected by the…closures?

Effect of Winter Closures

84 510

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes 26% 24% 5% 12% 17%

No 74% 76% 95% 88% 83%

Faculty Grad/Pros Undergrad PostDocs All

Chart 12: Faculty Affected by Closure by Division

Effect of Closure by Division:Faculty (n = 84)

SciEng13%

Humanities57%

SocScis18%

Medicine12%

Chart 13: Graduate Students affected by Closure by School

Closure Effect by School:Graduate Students (n = 508)

Engineering30%

H & S42%

Education6%

Law8%

Medicine7% Earth Scis

4%

GSB3%

Open-ended Comments on Hours: Faculty

• 147 of 372 faculty respondents (40%) commented.

• 19 (5%) said hours are fine.

• 22 (6%) said they only use on-line library

• 12 (3%) said hours are not a problem due to 24 hour key access

• 27 (7%) said weekend hours are too short

• 13 (3%) said evening hours are too short

• 54 (15%) said holiday/intersession/summer hours are too short

A Sampling of Hours Comments: Faculty

“I thought it was disgraceful, even for budgetary reasons, to close the library over winter intersession.”

“This year, for whatever reasons, there was a cut-back on hours over the Winter Break and at other times. The Library is an essential resource for faculty and graduate students, and a great university needs a library that maximizes its availability to faculty, graduate students, and other researchers. I think Stanford has done less than well on this score. This is not an abstract comment. The library's hours impact on the ability of people to do the work required of them by their departments and the university. Less than maximum availability to the library is equivalent to closing labs to scientists at certain periods. There is no difference, except that scientists bring in lots of money and evidently humanists and social scientists are deemed less important in terms of access to their "lab" for reasons extraneous to their work. This is a personal comment, of course, but I have heard similar comments from many faculty members,

whether they express it in this medium or not.”

“It would be great if Terman Engineering library could be open on weekends.”

Summary Findings (cont’d)

• Online library resources have become integral to the work of faculty and students

• Other faculty resources remain relevant

Chart 14: Importance of Library resources by degree: All respondents

Library online resources import

Very Important

77%

Important14%

Neutral6%

Not at all Important

1%Not

Important2%

Chart 15: Importance of Library online resources by degree: Faculty

Library online resources import:faculty

Very Important

87%

Not or Not at all

Important1%

Important9%

Neutral3%

Chart 16: Import of resource types for Faculty work: Percent "important" or "very important"

89%

96%

34%

80%

41%

69%

70%

87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Library print resources

Library online resources

Non-SU libraries

Other online

Own Department resources

Personal books, journals,etc.

Colleagues

E-mail

Summary Findings (cont’d)

• Remote access to libraries resources is prevalent

--89% of faculty and 70% of graduate students use office, home or other computers to access library resources at least once per week

Summary Findings (cont’d)

• What do faculty seek or do most often?

Chart 17: Remote types of use or information-seeking: Faculty

Remote information seeking: faculty

59%

46%

57%

58%

70%

72%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Renew books

Consult staff

Full-text e-books

Interlibrary loan

Indexes/abstract DBs

E-journals

Socrates

Note: Socrates, E-journals, Indexes = Once/week or more; other = Once/Quarter or more

Summary Findings (cont’d)

• Importance of e-journals

Chart 18: Importance of E-Journals: Faculty

Import of E-Journals:Faculty

97%

61%

89%83%

90% 88%84%

1%

22%

9%13%

8%10%

1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Medical Humanities SciEng SocScis Business Law All faculty

Important or Very Import. Not important or not at all import

• Providing access to electronic resources of all kinds emerged as the most widely listed choice as a top priority

• 82% of faculty selections

• 87% of graduate student selections

• 71% of undergraduate selections

• 98% of post-doctoral appointees and RA selections

Summary Findings: User Priorities

Summary Findings: User Priorities

• Maintenance of the quality and quantity of print collections emerged as the second most widely listed choice as a top priority

• 70% of faculty selections

• 65% of graduate student selections

• 61% of undergraduate selections

• 67% of post-doctoral appointees and RA selections

Table Two. Top Priorities Cited by Respondents by Academic Area and Status

Electronic Resources

Maintaining Print Collections

Highly Qualified Staff

Hours Electronic Reserves

Faculty Humanities 66% 90% 69% 37% 20% Medicine 97% 46% 47% 8% 15% Sciences&Engineering 96% 72% 64% 14% 15% Social Sciences 91% 84% 58% 20% 18% Graduate Students

Humanities 75% 88% 53% 50% 23% Medicine 94% 54% 28% 64% 55% Sciences&Engineering 88% 62% 29% 42% 37% Social Sciences 87% 75% 40% 41% 35% Undergraduates 71% 61% 34% 66% 46%

Open-ended Comments on Priorities: Faculty

• 19% of Faculty commented on priorities• Range of diverse topics: from cleaner toilets to transformation

of structure of scholarly publishing• Largest number of comments complementary to closed-ended

findings on priorities-- 19 comments on electronic access, e-journals and digitization-- 16 comments on maintenance or expansion of print resources-- 6 comments on storage of print collections-- 4 comments on media collections access and expansion

• Diverse set of 17 comments on services and staff

A Sampling of Priorities Comments

• “E-journals are by far the most important”.

• “My top priority is maintaining the print collection”.

• “Scanning older journals so they are available online.”

• “Keep all print collections on campus.”

• “Combined Science library in Old Chem.”

• “[E]nsuring…that a science library does not replace Swain, Falconer, etc.”

• “Providing research assistance to faculty.”

• “Get the students to use the library, they think everything important is online; i.e., outreach to undergraduates.”

Summary Findings: Budget Reductions

• 8 contingent budget reduction choices• 76% favor cancellation of print journals where

electronic available (problems with this?)• Use--not cost--primary element in journal

cancellation

Chart 19: Budget Reduction Scenarios: All

Budget Reduction Scenarios:All Respondents

35%

6%

8%

76%

10%

39%

16%

13%

42%

78%

71%

13%

64%

32%

50%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cancel low use journals

Cancel high cost journals

Cancel journals w ith highincreases

Cancel print journals for e-journals

Reduce book purchases inall areas

Reduce book purchases inlow use areas

Reduce databases andindexes

Reduce staff by freezesand/or layoffs

Disagree

Agree

Additional Open-ended Comments: Faculty• 23% of Faculty took opportunity at close of Survey to make additional comments on the Libraries and Academic Computing

• Range of diverse topics, ranging from praise for specific libraries or named librarians to advocacy of open standards. Including, inter alia:

• 26 comments on electronic access, e-journals and digitization

• 12 comments on print and media resources

• 12 comments on staff and services

• 7 comments on Branch and Coordinate Libraries

• 6 comments on Socrates

• 6 comments on multiple dimensions, including tensions between print and electronic

A Sampling of Additional Comments• “More emphasis on print; less on electronic.”

• “On line access to materials is revolutionary. All else is minor in comparison.”

• “If Socrates were easier and more satisfactory to use, all the other computer offerings would be more helpful.”

• “This survey bothers me, since it is biased to those who are willing to deal with this stuff electronically. In general, I have a feeling that people who enjoy books, wandering in the stacks, and working with hard copy materials are treated like smokers, when, in point of fact there is nothing unhealthy or outdated about books and printed materials. Attempts to get this survey in hard copy did not work. I hate working on a computer. I spend far too much time as it is communicating and living in front of a screen. For Pete's sake, let's not turn our libraries into places where books, newspapers, and journals in printed form disappear.”

• “ Storing books in Livermore when Stanford has so much land is absurd.”

Conclusions (cont’d)

• “Both/and” dilemma• Clear value placed on electronic resources

Chart 20: Electronic Resources Value: All

92%

82%

62%

56%

78%

60%

59%

76%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Value SU online resources

Value non-SU online resources

Access library resources from office often

Look for full-text e-journals

Regard e-journals highly for work

Are satisfied with e-journal access

List electronic access as top priority

Replace print journals with e-journals if budget needs

Electronic Resources Value

Conclusions (cont’d)

• To come: possible focus group or interview follow-ups