Presentation on theme: "Bound for Disappointment Faculty and Journals at Research Institutions Jim Self University of Virginia Library USA 7 th Northumbria Conference Spier, South."— Presentation transcript:
Bound for Disappointment Faculty and Journals at Research Institutions Jim Self University of Virginia Library USA 7 th 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
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)
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)
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?
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?
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.