1. Collection development: Assessing the needs and concerns of library clients Sebastian Uijtdehaage, PhD Health Education Assets Library David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA

2. Health Education Assets Library Funded in 2000 and 2002 by NSF and in 2003 by NLM Collection track NSDL Co-directors: – Sharon Dennis, MS (U Utah) – Chris Candler, MD (U Oklahoma) – Sebastian Uijtdehaage, PhD (UCLA) www.healcentral.org

3. Drivers Collection Development Collection Development Process Learning objectives of “typical” curricula Federal/state requirements Current events (e.g., SARS, bioterrorism) Users’ needs New scientific findings (e.g., genetics) New technologies Other factors…

4. Main stakeholders 1. Faculty looking for teaching resources 2. Faculty contributing teaching materials Collection development process needs to consider the needs of both stakeholder groups.

5. HEAL’s mission HEAL’s mission is to provide free digital materials of the highest quality that meet the needs of today’s health sciences educators. As a non-profit organization HEAL promotes the preservation and exchange of useful educational assets while respecting ownership and privacy. users contributors

6. Will faculty contribute materials? Collection growth may depend upon the willingness of faculty members to cooperate. Are faculty willing to contribute or donate their teaching resources?

7. Focus Group Study* Donating materials to public and local digital libraries: What concerns do faculty have? What incentives can be created? What obstacles need to be removed? *Academic Medicine, 2003;79:286-294

8. Focus group participants 34 faculty members from 13 medical colleges across the US – 14 MDs – 20 PhDs 5 focus group sessions Discussions taped and transcribed Transcriptions analyzed using rigorous method

9. Focus group method Participants responded to 3 scenarios: 1. After you demonstrate your teaching resources at a conference a colleague requests your materials. Will you give it to him? 2. The NLM hosts a national library of multimedia. Will you contribute? 3. Your institution wants to create a local multimedia database. Will you cooperate?

10. Focus group study results: Obstacles Confusion about © and intellectual property: Poorly communicated institutional rules Who owns copyright if materials developed in team? Origin of materials uncertain Copyright law poorly understood How effective is copyright law for web materials? Will others give adequate credit/attribution?

11. More obstacles… No time for cataloging Sharing is too much hassle and red tape Perceived commercial potential

12. Focus group results: incentives for sharing “How do the chairman or P/T Committee value the teaching we do? Peer review could be a very strong way for the faculty member to demonstrate the high quality of teaching and get credit for it.”

13. Incentive: peer review Peer review of electronic teaching materials: – Contribution becomes academic achievement – Lends prestige to collection – Quality assurance mechanism

14. Preliminary Implications Recognize faculty members for their educational innovations Clarify intellectual property policy and © Provide tools for protecting IP and © (e.g., watermarking) Provide cataloging assistance Remove red tape, streamline contribution process

15. Survey: follow up study Online survey Solicited participation through email listserves 356 respondents Survey objectives: – Determine which obstacles for sharing exists and how incentives for sharing can be created – Get input about the direction of HEAL's collection development process. Specifically, determine the teaching areas where a need exists for multimedia – Identify the multimedia formats that are most commonly needed in health science education

16. Survey: preliminary results "A peer-review process is an incentive for educators to contribute to HEAL" "I am considering selling my teaching materials"

17. Survey: Multimedia needs

18. Search Transaction logs: Capturing users’ needs Analysis of search keywords entered by users “Who is looking for what and when?” Do clients leave empty handed? Do clients have an accurate idea of collection scope? Example: Michigan Teaching Network Collection analysis (Marcia Mardis)

19. Main points Collection development process should be driven in part by users’ needs Users are both clients and contributors Users’ needs can be assessed through – Focus group – Survey – Search transaction logs

20. Resources B.R. Witkin & J.W. Altschuld. Planning and conducting needs assessments—A practical guide. Sage Publications, 1995 R.A. Krueger. Focus groups—A practical Guide for applied research. Sage Publications, 1994 A. Fink (ed): The Survey Kit, 2 nd edition, Sage Publications, 2003

21. Thank you! Sebastian Uijtdehaage David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA Bas@ucla.edu 310/794-9009