1 / 29

Bound for Disappointment Faculty and Journals at Research Institutions

Explore the correlation between journal collections and faculty satisfaction, addressing dissatisfaction concerns at research institutions. Analyzing LibQUAL+ data, examine strategies for improvement.

harrissteve
Download Presentation

Bound for Disappointment Faculty and Journals at Research Institutions

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. Bound for DisappointmentFaculty and Journals at Research Institutions Jim Self University of Virginia Library USA 7th Northumbria Conference Stellenbosch, South Africa 15 August 2007

  2. Session outline • LibQUAL+ overview • LQ at the University of Virginia in 2006 • Association of Research Libraries data • Composite LQ results 2004-06 • Focus on question IC:8 • Interviews with UVa faculty • Conclusions

  3. The questions for today • What is the relationship between journal collections and overall library satisfaction among faculty? • Given the substantial investment in journals, why are faculty consistently dissatisfied with their library’s journal collections? • How should we address the dissatisfaction?

  4. LibQUAL+ Overview • 22 core questions • 1-9 scale • Ratings of minimum, desired, perceived • Locally selected questions • General satisfaction ratings • Information literacy questions • Queries on use of libraries and search tools • Demographic questions

  5. LibQUAL+ Question IC-8 • Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

  6. Question IC-8 and ARL faculty • Highest ‘desired’ score • Highest minimum score • Most negative adequacy gap

  7. Drilling into the ARL data • The relationship between serial expenditures and LibQUAL+ scores for IC-8 • The relationship between IC-8 scores and overall satisfaction

  8. Dollars and Desires • Serial expenditures at ARL libraries ranged from $3.6M to $11.4M US in FY05 • The 37 libraries spent $232M for serials • No relation between serial expenditures and faculty ‘desired’ score (r = -.14)

  9. Dollars and Perception • Do serial expenditures affect the perception scores and the adequacy gaps for IC-8? • Significant correlation of serial expenditures and IC-8 adequacy gap, among faculty (r = .63)

  10. Journal Ratings and Overall Satisfaction • Do journal scores relate to overall satisfaction? • Strong correlation of IC-8 adequacy gap and overall satisfaction, among ARL faculty. (r = .81)

  11. Following up with Journals at UVa • Who is unhappy? • Drilling down by college and discipline • Why are they unhappy? • Reading the comments • Conducting targeted interviews

  12. Examining the survey comments at UVa • Usually general, not specific or actionable, sometimes contradictory • “Budget problems have caused too many cancellations.” • “We need more journals in my field.” • “My chief disappointment is in the cancellation of journal subscriptions.”

  13. Follow up interviews regarding journals • Focus on areas with low scores • Diverse group of faculty • Asked for specific needs and wants • Including names of needed titles • Quick interviews

  14. Four questions • Is the Library meeting your minimum level regarding journal collections? • If not, what can we do? • Is the Library meeting your desired level? • If not, what can we do? • Does it matter if journals are print or electronic? • Any other comments about the library?

  15. 82 faculty interviews • Humanities – 20 • Engineering – 19 • Architecture – 14 • Social Science – 10 • Science/Math – 8 • Education – 7 • Music/Arts – 2 • Business – 2

  16. Findings from the faculty interviews • Nearly everyone says the library is meeting their minimum level for journals • But many respondents say the library is not meeting their desired level • Comments are overwhelmingly positive, but many suggestions for improvement are made • Faculty are sympathetic, and often blame the shortfalls on budget problems

  17. Specific shortfalls • Access to journals is confusing • Improve interfaces, increase education • Need more foreign titles • Need more backfiles and older content • Location (storage, branches) is a problem • Electronic remote access does not work well • Facilities for browsing need improvement • Need print instead of online, or vice versa

  18. In summary • No single issue producing the low scores • Searching and access are major problems …but not the only problems

  19. How is the Library responding? • Continuing efforts to improve the search interfaces • Greater effort to inform and instruct faculty and grad students • More receptivity to requests for journals • Within the library, an increased awareness of the importance of journals to faculty

  20. Other possibilities to consider… • More visibility and marketing of journals? • More reliance on delivery services for faculty? • Eliminate the need for searching • More one on one contact with faculty and graduate students? • Less public talk of journal problems, costs, and cancellations?

  21. The last word… • At North American research institutions… How faculty feel about the library is greatly influenced by how they feel about the journal collections.

  22. Thank you! • Jim Self • self@virginia.edu • http://www.lib.virginia.edu/mis/

More Related