LibQUAL

1. LibQUAL The UK and London South Bank experience

3. Peter Godwin London South Bank University 28 June 2005

4. LibQUAL : the UK and LSBU experience • Life before LibQUAL • Arrival of LibQUAL • UK and Irish participation • SCONUL experience • UK and US comparisons • LSBU experience • What have I learned?

5. Life before LibQUAL • Part of general University user satisfaction survey • Priority Research surveys • SCONUL and its role • UK national student survey 2005 has one whole library question!

6. Arrival of LibQUAL • Organised via SCONUL Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement • Supported by Consortium of University Research Libraries in the UK and Ireland • Involvement began in 2003

7. UK and Irish take-up • 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in 2003 • 17 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in 2004 • 17 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participating in 2005 • 43 different institutions

8. John Moores University Lancaster University Leeds University Liverpool University University of Manchester University of Sheffield Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen Dundee University Edinburgh University Glasgow University Napier University Queen Margaret College Strathclyde University Birmingham ,Coventry University University of Wolverhampton De Montfort University Luton University, Oxford University College, Northampton Anglia Polytechnic University Dublin Institute of Technology Trinity College, Dublin Ulster University University of Wales, Newport University of Swansea London South Bank University Brunel University City University Roehampton University Royal Holloway University of East London University of London University of Westminster University of Surrey, Guildford Bath University University of West England Cranfield University Exeter University University of Gloucestershire University College Worcester

9. Institutions who took part • Mixture of old and new Universities • Includes 2 Irish Universities • Diversity encouraged so that libraries feel they can compare results against peers

10. Participation 2003-2005 • By 2004 20% of UK institutions • 31% of HE students (530,000) • 26% of Libraries • 28% of Library expenditure • By 2005 one third of UK HE institutions had taken part

11. Time schedule • December – Registration deadline • January – UK Training • February to May – Surveys run • One month after survey closes – Results distributed • July – Dissemination • Plus second run in 2005 (Coventry)

12. Response comparisons • SCONUL 2003 • 20 institutions • 11,919 respondents • SCONUL 2004 • 16 institutions • 16,611 respondents • Increase by 4,692

13. SCONUL experience : reasons for taking part • Allows benchmarking • Analysis is compiled by ARL and Texas A&M • Competitive price • Enabled comparison with other survey methods • More library focussed than other institutional surveys

14. SCONUL experience : issues • Obtaining e-mail addresses problematic • Demographic data problems • The smaller the sample the smaller the result • Sampling was hard, and blanket e-mail increased response markedly • Desirability of separating full and part time student responses

15. SCONUL experience : issues • May need to have results and radar charts for particular sites • UK libraries are used to more summaries and a commentary on results • Difficulty of aligning our subjects with standard ARL disciplines • Some concerns about US bias and exact wording of content and language

16. SCONUL experience : lessons • LibQUAL is easy to administer and support is good • LibQUAL instrument has more respectability than home-grown surveys • Most places were not too surprised at their results, but detailed questions gave far more data • People adjust their expectations according to the environment • Users don’t care what we wear

17. SCONUL experience : lessons • Users’ desire for journals, books and learning materials is insatiable • The things we care most about are not necessarily what they care most about • Comparative data in UK available for the first time • Glasgow have found their zones of tolerance move up the scale as the minimum service levels score higher • At least half participants have said they will use LibQUAL again

18. SCONUL experience : lessons • The results for SCONUL cohort 2004 were more critical than 2003 due to • Different participants? • Increasing expectations as students have to pay more themselves

19. UK and US comparisons in 2004 • UK undergraduates had negative mean service adequacy gap for Library as place • UK postgraduates had negative mean service adequacy gap for Library as place and Information control • Uk academic staff had negative mean service adequacy gap for Library as place and ARL faculty for Information control

20. Glasgow and London South Bank • Glasgow • 2003 = 503 • 2004 = 2,178 • 2005 = 1,384 • London South Bank University • 2003 = 276 • 2004 = 568 • 2005 = 766

21. London South Bank University

24. London South Bank University • Central London new University • 16,388 staff and students • Founded in 1892 as Borough Polytechnic, • Joined 4 other colleges to become South Bank Polytechnic in 1970 • Became South Bank University in 1992 and London South Bank University in 2003

25. London South Bank University • 42% male, 52% female • 62% are 25 and over • 47.5% are part-time • 74.5% undergraduate, 22% postgraduate • By country of origin 41% are from overseas • 40% are white and 60% ethnic minorities

27. London South Bank University • 17% Arts and Human Sciences • 32% Health and Social Care • 21.5% Engineering, Science and Built Environment • 24% Business, Computing and Information Management

29. LSBU experience • E-mail option problematic but has improved this year • Participation has increased each year. No survey fatigue! • A good incentive is essential • Promotion of the survey around the buildings is productive • Surprising number fill in a printed version

30. LSBU experience • 2003 was a pilot and detailed results had to be treated with caution • 2004 was valid and showed some improvements in satisfaction • 2005 showed marked improvement, with all positive undergraduate adequacy mean scores

35. LSBU explanations • After 2003 survey we redecorated the main library, installed new book shelves and a new Library Management System • After 2004 survey we redesigned our Web site, made off-campus access easier, used “floorwalkers” at crucial times of the year to answer queries and help students navigate the building, improved guiding and maps, prioritised shelf tidying using special team of shelvers with mandatory shelf tidying each week for all staff

36. LSBU experience • Surveys are dynamic processes and views do change • The instrument is comprehensive but is long and off-putting to fill in • Provides excellent information on user satisfaction but needs to be supplemented by our own snap surveys on particular issues e.g.this year use of our LIS Web Site LIS@ • Comments in the box are very valuable and supplement the statistical information. We are going to use them to set up Focus Groups

37. “Generally, staff are helpful but some are very hostile indeed” (PG Social Science female student 23-30) “Compared with other University libraries it is a fine place to find information to learn and work” (UG Social Science male student 18-22) Comments

38. “Better work in here than 2 years back. Keep up the good work” (UG Business Male student 23-30) “It is improving but some staff is still very rood especially gards” (UG ArtsMan/Media/ English female student 23-30) Comments

39. What have I learned? • Libraries both sides of the Atlantic share many of the same problems and can learn from one another • LibQUAL is an instrument which can be used internationally

40. What have I learned? “Only customers judge quality ; all other judgements are essentially irrelevant” (Zeithaml,V.A. Parasuman, A., Berry.L.L. “Delivering quality”)