1 / 17

Faculty information needs: How well do we support the biosciences?

This report discusses the need to improve support for biosciences programs in research libraries. It explores the reasons for review, growing interdisciplinarity, changing use patterns, and the current split in support between health sciences and sciences. The report recommends consolidation of collections, integration of search tools, and expanding delivery options.

ashleybradley
Download Presentation

Faculty information needs: How well do we support the biosciences?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty information needs:How well do we support the biosciences? 2007 CNI Spring Task Force Meeting Neil Rambo University of Washington Libraries Association of Research Libraries

  2. Biosciences Review Task Force(2005-06) • Reasons for review • Growing interdisciplinarity • Significant change in use patterns • Current support split between Health Sciences/Sciences • Libraries connection to the research enterprise

  3. UW Students, Faculty and Doctorates Awarded by Academic Area

  4. Biosciences Review Task Force(2005-06) • Review current support to bioscience programs • Use a customer-centered qualitative approach • Examine how other research libraries support biosciences • Recommend how we can best support bioscience programs

  5. Biosciences Review Process • Define scope Dec 2005 • Mine existing data • Survey, use, institutional, peer Jan-May 2006 • Acquire new information • Environmental scan Jan-May 2006 • Interviews (library staff) Jan-Apr 2006 • Interviews (biosci faculty) Feb 2006 • Focus groups (biosci faculty & students) Mar-Apr 2006 • Peer library surveys Apr 2006 • Synthesis and first draft May-Aug 2006 • Reaction and revision • Final report and recommendations Sep-Dec 2006 • Incorporate into Libraries plan 2007-

  6. Use of Print Collections 1995-96 To 2004-05

  7. Biosciences Review: Multiple Data Sources Qualitative (new) Faculty interviews (10) Focus groups (6) Experts Peer institutions Data Mining (repurposing) UW Institutional data Library use statistics UW Libraries Triennial Survey UW Libraries In-Library Survey

  8. Journal Article Downloads2004-054,761,704(Counter Compliant Titles as of May ‘06)

  9. Faculty Interview Themes • Library seen primarily as e-Journal provider • Physical library used only for items not available online • Start information search with Google and PubMed • Too busy for training, instruction etc. • Faculty who teach seem to use libraries differently • Could not come up with “new library services”

  10. FocusGroup Themes • Google, PubMed, Web of Science starting points for all • Faculty identify library with e-journals • Want more online, including older materials • Faculty/many grads go to physical library as last resort • If not online want digital delivery • Too many libraries • e-Science emerging as a new priority • Lack understanding of many library services, resources • Undergrads rarely use print unless assigned by faculty • Increasing overlap between “bio” research and other science research

  11. Task Force Recommendations • Consolidate life and health sciences collections and service points • Accelerate and expand move to off-site storage • Reorganize libraries around broad user communities • Integrate search/discovery tools into users workflow • Expand delivery options

  12. Reasons for Use Pattern ChangesLook for e-journals at least 2x week - Faculty by area

  13. Task Force Recommendations • Collection allocation decision process needs reforming • Increased integration of librarians with user workflow • Increased role in scholarly communication and e-science issues • Partnering with broader sci/tech community • More effective communication/marketing

  14. Survey 2004: Print Collection/E-Journal Priority

More Related