1 / 31

The University of Memphis Libraries Faculty Survey Spring 2001

The University of Memphis Libraries Faculty Survey Spring 2001. Executive Summary Prepared by Perveen Rustomfram November 2002. Note: Percentages are based upon the 194 faculty responses received, unless otherwise indicated. Male Tenured Professor Arts & Sciences @ UofM 10+ years

hayes-meyers
Download Presentation

The University of Memphis Libraries Faculty Survey Spring 2001

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. The University of Memphis Libraries Faculty Survey Spring 2001 Executive Summary Prepared by Perveen Rustomfram November 2002

  2. Note: Percentages are based upon the 194 faculty responses received, unless otherwise indicated.

  3. Male • Tenured • Professor • Arts & Sciences • @ UofM 10+ years • Computer literate • Grad/upper level Ugrad courses

  4. Libraries used or visited duringFeb. 2000 – March 2001 • McWherter 85.6% • Mathematics 2.6% • Chemistry 2.1% • Earth Sciences 2.1% • Music 2.1% • Audiology and Speech Language Pathology 1.5% • No Response 4.1%

  5. Overwhelmingly the McWherter Library was the most used • Visited in person 92.8% • Used via remote access 67.5% • Called via phone 44.8% • Used via Graduate Assistants 40.7%

  6. Top seven reasons for using the Libraries • Research 87.6% • Browse journal collection 65.5% • Prepare for coursework 57.2% • Pick up material ILL, holds/recalls 57.2% • Browse book collection 47.9% • Consult library staff in person 43.3% • Consult library staff by phone 28.4%

  7. Bottom five reasons for using Libraries • Consult library staff by email 20.1% • Use instruction classrooms 14.9% • Use meeting rooms 14.4% • Bring in class for library instruction 12.9% • Read for pleasure 10.8%

  8. Importance of resources for faculty research • Print Journals 82.5% • Electronic Indexes and Abstracts 67.5% • tomCAT (Online Catalog) 64.4% • Circulating Books 57.7% • Full-text Databases 54.1% • Reference Books 51.0% • Electronic Journals 45.9% • Print Indexes/Abstracts 39.7% • U of M Libraries Web Pages 32.0% • Microforms 25.3% • Government Publications 23.2% • Newspapers 11.9%

  9. Satisfaction with resources for faculty research ranked in descending order(n=Number of respondents stating an opinion) • Government Publications 88.4% 95 • U of M Libraries Web Pages 87.6% 145 • Print Indexes/Abstracts 79.7% 138 • Special Collections(Rare Books/Archives) 79.0% 62 • Electronic Indexes and Abstracts 77.4% 155 • Newspapers 76.3% 97 • tomCAT (Online Catalog) 73.2% 168 • Maps 72.0% 50 • Microforms 70.8% 120 • Sheet Music 70.4% 27 • Electronic Journals 64.8% 128 • Music Recordings(Records/CDs/Audio) 64.3% 28 • Full-text Databases 63.4% 142 • Reference Books 61.7% 167 • Audiovisuals(Film/Audio/Video) 55.1% 78 • Circulating Books 43.4% 175 • Print Journals 42.3% 175

  10. Importance of resources for student research (n=194) • Print Journals 69.1% • Circulating Books 60.3% • Electronic Indexes and Abstracts 58.8% • Reference Books 58.2% • tomCAT (Online Catalog) 56.2% • Full-text Database 46.9% • Electronic Journals 44.3% • Print Indexes/Abstracts 38.1% • U of M Libraries Web Pages 32.5% • Government Publications 23.2% • Microforms 20.1% • Newspapers 11.9%

  11. As a point of comparison, responses to the 1999 Undergraduate students’ survey indicated that the top three resources used were books, periodicals, and electronic databases.

  12. Satisfaction with resources for student research(n=Number of respondents stating an opinion) • U of M Libraries Web Pages 87.7% 114 • Government Publications 86.4% 81 • tomCAT (Online Catalog) 80.2% 131 • Electronic Indexes and Abstracts 74.8% 127 • Newspapers 74.4% 82 • Print Indexes/Abstracts 74.2% 120 • Special Collections(Rare Books/Archives) 72.7% 44 • Microforms 72.2% 97 • Maps 66.7% 36 • Full-text Databases 63.8% 116 • Electronic Journals 63.8% 116 • Sheet Music 61.9% 21 • Music Recordings(Records/CDs/Audio) 59.2% 27 • Reference Books 56.0% 152 • Audiovisuals(Film/Audio/Video) 48.4% 62 • Print Journals 40.8% 147 • Circulating Books 39.1% 156

  13. Satisfaction with Services(n= Number of respondents stating an opinion) • Check out/Renewal/Billing 81.0% 142 • Adaptive Technology Lab 80.6% 31 • Interlibrary Loan 72.8% 158 • Assigned Study Carrels 72.7% 44 • Reserve Room 71.2% 111 • Networked Printing (Main) 64.4% 59 • Holds/Recalls 61.6% 112 • McWherter Copy Center 57.7% 104 (Dept Photocopying) • Micro/readers/printers/VCRs 54.8% 93 • Self-service Photocopying 51.5% 130

  14. Satisfaction with Departments(n=Number of respondents stating an opinion) • Reference Department 93.5% 155 • Circulation Department 87.0% 154 • Periodicals Department 90.0% 142 • Government Publications 95.7% 94 • Microforms/AV 76.9% 104 • Special Collections 91.7% 60 • Interlibrary Loan Department 78.2% 147 • Reserve Room 71.4% 98 • Copy Center 67.4% 95

  15. Satisfaction with Branches(n= Number of respondents stating an opinion) • Audiology and Speech 100.0% 8 Pathology Library • Chemistry Library 87.5% 16 • Earth Sciences Library 92.9% 14 • Mathematics Library 66.7% 18 • Music Library 100.0% 14

  16. Library Instruction • Aware of library instruction classes for students 64.9% • Unaware of library instruction classes for students 28.9% • Make use of library instruction classes for students 22.2% • Do not make use of library instruction classes for students 69.6%

  17. Future Needs: Prioritized by Faculty (n=194) • Print Journals 80.9% • Print Books 62.4% • Online Full-Text Journal articles 60.8% • Online indexes and databases 56.7% • Document Delivery Service 48.5% • Reshelve material quickly & accurately 42.3% • Photocopiers 37.1%

  18. FutureNeeds (contd.) • Libraries computer workstations 31.4% • Electronic full-text reserves 27.8% • Vend-a-card machines 24.7% • Change Machines 24.2% • Improve online help screens 23.2% • Increase Libraries hours on weekends 21.6% • Microform printers 21.6% • More staff to provide assistance 20.1% • Microform readers 17.0%

  19. Characterization of Comments • More, more, more journals • More, more, more books • More electronic indexes and databases • More full-text electronic journals • Increase acquisitions budget • ILL-expand number of requests accepted weekly • More videotapes/audiotapes • Staff: assistance praised/needs improvement/need more • Doing great job despite being under-funded and understaffed

  20. Areas Recommended for Attention • To be a research university library: • Increase resources/collections (books, journals, etc.) • Expand/improve document delivery and interlibrary loan services • Expand/improve remote access to resources/services • Improve student/staff training • Increase number of library personnel

  21. Actions taken by Libraries since survey was completed • Remote Access • Proxy server was installed; provides greatly improved off-campus access to Libraries’ electronic information • Limitation on ILL requests removed • Access Services Librarian position filled • Redesigning ILL website • New electronic ILL form available early 2003 • Reviewing ILLiad software package for possible purchase • Will provide online access to articles requested via ILL and enhance online requesting via ILL

  22. Actions taken (contd.) • Systems • Upgraded Libraries’ network for increased speed • Upgraded Libraries’ tomCat (online catalog) software • Installed 70 new public access terminals in McWherter and Branch Libraries • McWherter Library became a “wireless” building • Secured network access to safeguard confidentiality and system security • Will fill Web Services Librarian position in early 2003 • Anticipate improvement/enhancement of Libraries WebServices

  23. Actions taken (contd.) • Resources/Collections • Collection Development Librarian position filled • Redefining collection development procedures through Libraries’ Liaison Program • Provide access to 25,000+ e-books via Webpage • Provide access to 150+ electronic databases/indexes • Provide access to over 19,000 full-text electronic journals and / or abstracts of articles • Upgraded microform printing system • Loaded UofM Law School Library holdings into tomCat in 2002 • Will load post-1989 Government Publications holdings into tomCat in 2003

More Related