Faculty Use Of Journals & Databases: Development & Application of Rating Scales

1. Faculty Use Of Journals & Databases: Development & Application of Rating Scales By Frank Elliott (ellio022@umn.edu) University of Minnesota Libraries June 21, 2004

2. Background & Methodology • How the naturalistic research method was developed and evolved from department to department. How faculty move through an information environment. • Thinking of a few key planning, evaluation, information theorists. Arnstein, Branch, Bryson, Buckland, Denzin, Mohr, Nardi, Palmquist, Schon. • Need to be involved in an action oriented problem solving way. • Discussion of forms used to gather information.

3. Background & Methdology (cont) • Key questions on the interview form were: • Your research interests • How do you use the library • Library related research assignments for undergrads and grads • Questions about document delivery and reference services • Facial expressions were very important to read • In Mechanical Engineering the rating forms for journals and databases became set & interview flowed.

4. Generalized Findings • After several interviews, themes became clear ; later interviews confirmed major themes. • Limited awareness of library services & resources • Faculty depend on graduate students • Library fits poorly into undergraduate curriculum • Library fits better at the graduate level with research groups, theses, and dissertations • It’s hard to link the library to engineering problem solving. Faculty are embedded in experiments, models, simulation, mathematics, and laboratory work

5. Results For Journals In Mechanical Engineering • Faculty read anaverage of about ten journals • There was a clear clustering of top 50 journals. • There is a clear core collection for Mechanical Engineering. At 19 interviews it stands at 70 journals for both research and teaching. • Lists of top 50 journals are different for research and teaching -- 60% repetition on lists of top 50. • Journals more important for research than for teaching.

6. Results For Journals In Mechanical Engineering (cont) • Some top journals are in other campus libraries. • There were dependencies with operations research, decision sciences, and medical journals. • There is a strong need to consult with other librarians. • Results showed that I was making good cancellation decisions. Mention IMech Eng journals.

7. Results For Databases In Mechanical Engineering • Faculty search few databases. Average is 2.31. Most would benefit from searching 4-6. • Faculty steer around using the library. • There is a clearclustering of top databases. Compendex (9 of 19), Science citation index, Current contents, Inspec, Medline, MathSciNet, SciFinder Scholar, Project JSTOR, Digital dissertations. • Only two users search the number ten database on the list of 27 databases.

8. Actions Implementing Now • A tremendous educational effort is needed. -- behavioral keys & citizen participation. • Using interviews as a diagnostic tool & to talk about key databases. • Meeting student groups at chapter meetings very challenging to arrange. • Approaching directors of undergraduate and graduate studies to find venues.

9. Future Plans From Study • Working with research groups, lab groups, masters and doctoral students. • Needs assessment for information commons. • Please share your thoughts and advice. What are you thinking about, doing, or planning to do?

10. Bibliography • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of citizen participation. In J. M. Stein (Ed.), Classic readings in urban planning: An Introduction (pp. 358-375). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995. • Barry, C. (1997). Information skills for an electronic world: Training doctoral research students. Journal of Information Science, 23 (3), 225-238. • Branch, M. C. (1998). Comprehensive planning for the 21st century: General theory and principles. Wesport, CT: Praeger Publishers. • Bryson, J. M. & Crosby, B. C. (1996). Planning and the design and use of forums, arenas, and courts. In Mandelbaum, S. J. , Mazza, L., & Burchell, R. W. Explorations in planning theory (pp.462-482). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center For Urban Policy Research. • Buckland, M. K. Foundations of academic librarianship. College & Research Libraries, 1989, 50, 388-396. • Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Introduction: The Discipline and practice of qualitative research. (Chapter 1) In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. • Friedman, J (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. • Friedman, J. (1989). Planning in the public domain: Discourse and praxis. In J. M. Stein (Ed.), Classic readings in urban planning: An Introduction (pp. 74-79). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995. • March, J.G. (1978) Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Rand Journal of Economics, 9, 587-608. • Mohr, L.B. (1995). The Evaluation framework. (Chapter 1) In Impact Analysis for program Evaluation. (2nd ed., pp. 1-12). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. • Mohr, L.B. (1995). Outcomes and the problem. (Chapter 2) In Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. (2nd ed., pp. 13-30). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. • Mohr, L.B. (1995). Subobjectives and other components. (Chapter 3) In Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. (2nd ed., pp. 31-54). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. • Nardi, B. A. & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. • Nardi, B. A. & O’Day, V. L. (1998). Librarians: A keystone species. (Chapter 7) In Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. (pp. 79-104). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. • Nardi, B. A. & O’Day, V. L. (1998). Framing conversations about technology. (Chapter 2) In Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. (pp. 13-24). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. • Orlikowsky, W. J. (1992). The Duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3 , 398-427. • Palmquist, R.A., & Kyung-Sun, K. (1998). Modeling the users of information systems: Some theories and methods. The Reference Librarian, 60, 3-25. If you don’t read anything else, read this one. • Perkins, D.N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T.M. Duffy, & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. (pp.79-96). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlham Associates. • Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. • Schon, D. A. (1986). Toward a new epistemology of practice. In B. Checkoway(Ed.), Strategic perspectives on planning practice (pp. 231-250). Lexington: Lexington Books.