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

LibQUAL+ Question IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

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?

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.