Libraries Assessment Committee October 15 th , 2008

1. The Libraries’ Role in Attracting and Retaining Graduate Studentsto meet the relevant goals of Flagship 2030 Libraries Assessment Committee October 15th, 2008

2. Overview • Assessment Committee • Assessment Cycle • Why graduate students? • Prefatory notes • Data • Results • “Recommendations” • What’s next?

3. Libraries Assessment Committee The Committee will undertake and/or coordinate measurements of the quality of services and collections and the needs and expectations of the Libraries' clientele to support strategic planning, facilities planning, budget or performance review cycles, vendor contract renewals, or technology/systems conversions. It will endeavor to conduct library assessment in relation to institutional goals and outcomes. The Committee will recommend to Library Council and/or other committees actions based on the results of measurement and assessment.

4. Assessment Cycle

5. Why graduate students?

6. Prefatory Notes • Data communicated to Learning Commons team and consultant • Full report shared with Council • Living document—we need your input

7. Data • 2005 PBA survey (n > 1000) • 2006 LibQUAL+ (n = 225) • interviews (n = 8) • circulation and ILL data • electronic database login tabulations • budgetary data dating from 1996-2006 • departmental enrollment data • several informal polls • a comprehensive literature review

8. Results • Use • Perceptions • Collections • Facilities • Services • Beyond the perceptions

9. Results: Use • Three of the top four campus services utilized by graduate students are provided by the Libraries. • 62% use Libraries facilities daily or weekly and 85% use Libraries websites daily or weekly. • While they use the Libraries websites frequently, they appear to use it primarily to locate known items, using commercial search engines such as Google Scholar to discover new items.

10. Results: Perceptions • On two measures, libraries services rate higher than collections or facilities • Very high expectations for electronic collections

11. Results: Collections • Scientists -> electronic (80pts below ARL) • Humanists -> print (40pts below ARL) • Social Scientists fall in the middle

12. Results: Facilities

13. What about Norlin? • overall ambiance • individual study space • expert help provided • hours • how conducive the building is to studying

14. Beyond the perceptions • Collections • Facilities • Services

15. Collections Comparison of ARL and UCB library expenditures as a percentage of campus expenditures

16. Collections

17. Collections • Interviews reveal Google Scholar is the index of choice for grad students • They use Chinook to locate known items • There is a significant correlation between website usage and positive perception of e-resources

18. Collections Spring 2008 circulation/interlibrary loan sampling

19. Collections Database sessions per graduate student

20. Collections

21. Collections summary • UCB is well funded for collections • Serials cut impacted perceptions and underlying reality • There are some differences in disciplinary use of format • We can’t solve this problem by (merely) throwing more money at it

22. Facilities • Norlin dedicates more assignable space to book stacks • Branches dedicate more to study and computing space

23. Facilities

24. Multi-channel services • “[there] is the need for customers to have a consistent experience across all of the channels that they use in communicating with the supplier. Indeed, such is the importance of ‘consistency of experience’ that determining how it can be achieved must become a priority for multi-channel marketers . . . [we] need to build bridges between channel silos.” --Madaleno, R., Wilson, H., & Palmer, R. (2007). Determinants of customer satisfaction in a multi-channel B2B environment. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(8), 915-925.

25. Facilities Annual change in Libraries budget allocations

26. Staffing Colorado, 583

27. Putting it all together • We do need to improve collections (we dropped from 68th to 94th in serials, back up to 86th) • Improving facilities and staffing could help • Diversifying Libraries investment is best strategy

28. What we’ve already done • Business Library • The purchase of several large electronic collections in the humanities • The purchase of several large electronic indexes, electronic books, and back-files in the sciences • The implementation of an ‘open-URL resolver’ • A redesign of Chinook • The inclusion of enhanced records in Chinook, • The cataloging of special collections and government publications materials; • The construction of a subject guides database • The unveiling of CU-Digital Library • The negotiation of consortia subscriptions. • The recruiting of an Electronic Collections Assessment Librarian that can assist and provide leadership for continuous assessment of collections and their use; • Begun desktop delivery of journal articles from PASCAL; • OTHERS????

29. What we’re doing • Learning Commons, Research Floor, Study Space • Moving to a streamlined acquisitions process • Cancelling print subscriptions • An assessment of how monographic funds are allocated to various disciplines. • Construction of a second off-site holding facility, PASCAL II. • The investigation of “second-generation” catalog • The investigation of further access to electronic book collections; • The completion of a draft statement on scholarly communications • The continued design of an institutional repository • Others??

30. What We Still Have to Do • Complete all phases of the Norlin Library Renaissance Plan • Investigate federated search technologies • Expand Collection Development’s monograph reallocation project to include serials • Begin a grassroots campaign to increase graduate student awareness of the crisis in scholarly communications; • Create an emerging technologies group • Create a graduate student advisory group • Seek a one-time “facilities renewal budget • Reassess the use of PASCAL with respect to monographs and serials, paying attention to disciplines; • Expand desktop-delivery services; • Work with the campus to increase operations and personnel budgets to help diversify its investment in the Libraries; • OTHERS????

31. Full report • Draft available: http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/internal/assessment/Libraries_and_Graduate_Students_Oct2008.pdf