Bound for Disappointment
Faculty and Journals at Research Institutions
Jim SelfUniversity of Virginia Library USA
7th Northumbria Conference
Spier, South Africa
15 August 2007
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
The questions for today
Given the substantial investment in journals, why are faculty consistently dissatisfied with their library’s journal collections?
What is the relationship between journal collections and overall library satisfaction among faculty?
How should we address the dissatisfaction?
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
LibQUAL+ 2006University of Virginia Faculty
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
LibQUAL+ 2006University of Virginia Graduate Students
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
LibQUAL+ 2006ARL Composite Faculty
5
6
7
8
9
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
Question IC-8 and ARL faculty
Highest ‘desired’ score
Highest minimum score
Most negative adequacy gap
5
6
7
8
9
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
IC=8
LibQUAL+ 2004-06IC-8: Faculty and Graduate Student Ratings of Journal Collections
ARL Libraries
5
6
7
8
9
2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006
Faculty Graduate Students
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
LibQUAL+ 2006Faculty Ratings of Journal Collections
37 ARL Libraries
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
UVA
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)
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)5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
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)5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
-2.00 -1.60 -1.20 -0.80 -0.40 0.00 0.40
ARL Faculty 2006
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
-2.00 -1.60 -1.20 -0.80 -0.40 0.00 0.40
IC-8 Adequacy Gap
Ove
rall
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
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
LibQUAL+ 2006UVa Faculty and Graduate Student Ratings of Journal Collections
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
ArchitectureFaculty
EducationFaculty
EngineeringFaculty
HumanitiesFaculty
Science/MathFaculty
SocialScienceFaculty
ArchitectureGrads
EducationGrads
EngineeringGrads
HumanitiesGrads
Science/MathGrads
SocialScienceGrads
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.”
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
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?
82 faculty interviews
Humanities – 20 Engineering – 19 Architecture – 14 Social Science – 10 Science/Math – 8 Education – 7 Music/Arts – 2 Business – 2
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
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
In summary
No single issue producing the low scores Searching and access are major problems
…but not the only problems
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
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?