Conference Paper
Still Bound for Disappointment? Another Look
at Faculty and Library Journal Collections
Jennifer
Rutner
Assessment
and Planning Librarian
Columbia
University Libraries
New
York City, New York, United States of America
Email:
[email protected]
James Self
Director, Management
Information Services
University of Virginia Library
Charlottesville, Virginia,
United States of America
Email: [email protected]
2013 Rutner and Self. This is an
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To examine why faculty members at Columbia
University are dissatisfied with the library’s journal collections and to
follow up on a previous study that found negative perceptions of journal
collections among faculty at Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member
institutions in general.
Methods
– In
2006, Jim Self of the University of Virginia published the results of an
analysis of LibQUAL+® survey data for
ARL member libraries, focusing on faculty perceptions of journal collections as
measured by LibQUAL+® item IC-8: “print
and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work.” The current
analysis includes data from 21 ARL libraries participating in the LibQUAL+®
survey from 2006 through 2009. Notebooks for each library were accessed and
reviewed for the Information Control and overall satisfaction scores. At
Columbia, the results were used to identify departments with negative adequacy
gaps for the IC-8 item. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted with 24
faculty members in these departments, focusing on their minimum expectation for
journal collections, their desired expectations, and preferences for print or
electronic journals.
Results
– Analysis
of the 2009 LibQUAL+® scores shows that faculty across ARL libraries remain
dissatisfied with journal collections. None of the libraries achieved a positive
adequacy gap, in which the perceived level of service exceeded minimum
expectations. There was no significant change in the adequacy gap for the IC-8
item since 2006, and satisfaction relative to expectations remained consistent,
showing neither improvement nor decline. While most of the faculty members
interviewed at Columbia stated that the journal collections met their minimum
expectations, 15 of 24 reported that the library did not meet their desired
level of service in this area. Key issues identified in the interviews included
insufficient support from library staff and systems regarding journal
acquisition and use, the need for work-arounds for accessing needed journals,
problems with search and online access, collection gaps, insufficient backfile
coverage, and the desire for a discipline-specific “quick list” to provide
access to important journals.
Conclusion
–
The issue of satisfaction with journal collections is
complex, and faculty members have little tolerance for faulty systems. The evolution
of the electronic journal collections and the inherent access challenges will
continue to play a critical role in faculty satisfaction as libraries strive to
provide ever-better service.
Introduction
In 2006, Jim Self from the University of Virginia
(U.Va.) published the results of an analysis of LibQUAL+® data for Association
of Research Libraries (ARL) members, focusing on faculty perceptions of journal
collections. The LibQUAL+® item in question was IC-8: “print and/or electronic
journal collections I require for my work.” Findings included the observation
of negative adequacy gaps for this item across ARL institutions from 2006,
regardless of the level of expenditures on journals (Self, 2008). Adequacy
gaps, when dealing with LibQUAL+®, measure the difference between the minimum
score and the perceived score of a given survey item. A negative adequacy gap,
such as -0.5, tells us that perceived service ratings were lower than minimum
desired service ratings, i.e., that respondents are dissatisfied with the level
of service. A correlation of 0.84 was determined for the journal collection
item and the overall satisfaction item, confirming the importance of journal
collections on faculty’s overall satisfaction with library services. The study
also reviewed IC-8 scores for faculty at ARL institutions from 2004,
demonstrating a consistently negative adequacy gap. Follow-up phone interviews
with faculty at U.Va. shed some light on the complex topic. Issues of access –
both physical and electronic, missing backfiles, and coverage of foreign titles
were disclosed by faculty.
Since the study in 2006, U.Va. has worked to improve search interfaces,
most notably by introducing a new version of the online catalog in July 2010.
There has also been an ongoing effort to inform and instruct teaching faculty.
Individual libraries have made improvements in their journal holdings and
facilities. The Fine Arts Library transferred monographic funds to serials and
devoted more physical space to journal use. The Music Library conducted a
comprehensive review of all subscriptions, analyzing use and accessibility, and
identifying gaps in holdings. The study has educated library staff at U.Va. as
a whole; there is a deeper recognition of the profound importance of journals
to faculty.
Columbia University Libraries (CUL), which was included in Self’s
original 2006 analysis, participated in LibQUAL+® on a three-year basis from
2003, making 2009 the third administration of the survey at Columbia. U.Va.,
however, has not participated in LibQUAL+® since 2006. Response to the survey
at Columbia increased dramatically in 2009, with more than 3,800 completed
surveys (a vast improvement over the response level in 2006: around 250 surveys
completed).
This study follows up on Self’s initial inquiry, “Given the substantial
investment in journals at ARL libraries, why are faculty at these institutions
consistently dissatisfied with their library’s journal collections?” In 2009,
the collections budget at Columbia saw electronic resources outpace print for
the first time. More than 50% of the collections budget now funds electronic
resources, including e-journals. Before 2010, the collections budget at
Columbia continued to grow at a healthy pace, accounting for inflation and then
some. Why, then, do faculty continue to report dissatisfaction with journal
collections at Columbia? This study addresses the following questions:
The LibQUAL+® Survey
The LibQUAL+® Survey was developed by the Association
of Research Libraries and the Texas A&M University Libraries. The survey is
administered online and collects demographic, library use, overall
satisfaction, and perception feedback from library users. LibQUAL+®’s central
measures are the 22 core questions that approach library services from 3
perspectives: Affect of Service (AS), Information Control (IC), and Library as
Place (LP). Respondents are asked to rate each of the 22 items on a scale of
1-9 in 3 ways: their minimum level of service, their desired level of service,
and their perceived level of service. These scores together provide a rich view
of user perceptions of library services. One of the key benefits to this rating
scale is the analysis of the adequacy gap (i.e., the difference between the
minimum ratings and the perceived ratings). This adequacy gap allows libraries
to gauge whether or not they are meeting their users’ expectations in each of
the 22 areas of library service. An open-ended comment box, in which
respondents are invited to share any additional feedback with the library,
follows the 22 core items. These free-text comments provide context to the 22
survey items.
Methodology
The methodology for this study was based directly on
that used at U.Va. in 2006. Analysis includes data from ARL libraries
participating in the LibQUAL+® surveys from 2006 through 2009. Notebooks for
each ARL library were accessed and reviewed for the Information Control and
overall satisfaction scores (Cook, 2009). Unlike the 2006 U.Va. study, only
faculty scores were analyzed in this study; graduate students were not
included. ARL institutions with fewer than 50 faculty survey participants were
excluded from the analysis.
At Columbia, the 2009 LibQUAL+® results were used to
identify departments with negative adequacy gaps for the IC-8 item. These
departments were targeted with follow-up phone interviews using the identical
interview protocol developed at U.Va. in 2006. Interview participants were
asked about their minimum expectation for journal collections, their desired
expectations for journal collections, and preferences for print or electronic
journals. A series of themes were identified as significant. This paper
includes a preliminary analysis based on the Grounded Theory methodology
(Strauss, 1987). In total, 24 faculty members were interviewed over the phone.
Results at Columbia
2009 faculty scores for IC-8 were no surprise at
Columbia. As seen in Figure 1, the perceived score is well below the minimum,
with an adequacy gap of -0.34. Figure 1 displays the faculty scores for the 22
LibQUAL+® items, including Affect of Service (AS), Library as Place (LP), and
Information Control (IC). The top of each bar illustrates the mean desired
score, the bottom of the bar illustrates the mean minimum score, and the black
dot illustrates the mean perceived score for each survey item. While the Affect
of Service items show a relatively comfortable adequacy gap (other than AS-9,
which has consistently garnered low scores at Columbia), nearly all of the IC
items show perceived scores falling below the minimum. Library as Place items
show a level of satisfaction, with lower desired scores. It is clear that from
the high desired scores that faculty place the highest priority on Information
Control items and report that the Libraries are not meeting minimum
expectations in these areas. This is consistent with Columbia’s scores from
2003 and 2006.
Figure 2 displays the scores for IC-8 by faculty
discipline, illustrating that Health Sciences, Law, Architecture, Math,
Engineering, Education, Humanities, Computer Science, History, and Business
faculty reported a negative adequacy gap for IC-8 in 2009 at Columbia. These
departments were targeted for follow-up interviews with faculty, excluding the
Health Sciences, Law, and Education departments, as these populations were not
included in the initial survey sample. Many of the response counts for
individual departments were low. However, it was felt that this was a
sufficient way to identify which departments were relatively less satisfied
than others, and all were included for the sake of consistency.
Results at ARL Institutions
Figure 3 displays the composite faculty scores from
the 21 ARL libraries participating in LibQUAL+® 2009, included in this study.
In 2006, Self concluded that there was no correlation between expenditures and
faculty desired scores for journal collections (r = -0.14) (Self, 2008). This
analysis was not revisited in the current study.
Figure 1
LibQUAL+® 2009, Columbia University
Faculty
Figure 2
LibQUAL+® 2009, Columbia University Faculty, IC-8 by
discipline.
Figure 3
LibQUAL+® 2009, ARL Libraries Faculty
Looking at the 2009 scores for journal collections
across these ARL libraries, it is clear that faculty across these institutions
remain dissatisfied with journal collections. Figure 4 displays the scores for
each of the 21 ARL libraries included in this analysis. Libraries are arranged
from largest library (on the left) to smallest (on the right), based on total
library expenditures as reported by ARL (Kyrillidou & Bland, 2009).
Columbia is the first from the left in Figure 4. None of these 21 libraries achieved
a positive adequacy gap in 2009. It can be observed that the desired scores
appear relatively consistent between institutions (generally around 8.5) and
not remarkably higher than the same desired scores for ARL libraries in 2006
(Cook, 2006).
Figure 4
LibQUAL+® 2009, faculty ratings of journal collections, ARL Libraries
Comparisons Over Time
In his original study, Self illustrated that 2006 was
not a unique year for negative adequacy gaps on IC-8, showing similar scores
for ARL institutions from 2004 through 2006. Figure 5 displays IC-8 scores for
faculty from 2006 through 2009, further demonstrating the trend. The chart is
labeled with the mean and standard deviation for each data point.
Taking this analysis further, another question was
asked: Has there been a statistically significant change in IC-8 scores –
indicating a change in faculty satisfaction – since 2006? After conducting an
ANOVA (analysis of variance) using the mean adequacy gaps from each ARL
institution for IC-8 from 2006 through 2009, the significance was calculated to
be 0.119, which is not deemed statistically significant. In other words, there
has been no significant change in the adequacy gap for IC-8 since 2006, and
satisfaction relative to expectations remains consistent, showing neither
improvement nor decline. Faculty members are just as dissatisfied with journal
collections today as in 2006. A more meaningful evaluation of change over time
might involve the use the individual respondent scores from each institution
rather than means; unfortunately, this data is not available. ANOVA analysis
was not conducted on the item scores (minimum, desired, perceived), and would
be recommended to explore the topic further. Looking at the data in Figure 5,
it can be observed that the desired scores have remained relatively stable,
while the minimum scores and perceived scores have increased slightly. Is the
zone of tolerance shrinking?
Figure 5
LibQUAL+® 2006-09, Faculty ratings of journal collections,
ARL libraries
Information Control
Information Control items have consistently shown the
highest desired scores (indicating high-priority) among faculty, as well as the
largest negative adequacy gaps. How does IC-8 compare to the other IC items in
LibQUAL+®? Charting the adequacy gaps over time illustrates the change in the
size of the gaps, and whether the gaps are positive or negative. Figure 6 shows
that the adequacy gaps for IC-1, IC-5, IC-6, and IC-7 have remained relatively
stable. Items IC-2, IC-3, IC-4, and IC-8, show greater change over time. The
observed change in these scores (aside from IC-8) has not been evaluated for
statistical significance.
IC-4, addressing electronic resources, has had a
consistently negative adequacy gap, indicating faculty dissatisfaction with
service in this area. Looking at the IC-2 scores from ARL libraries since 2006,
a similar trend to IC-8 can be observed. Faculty perceptions are consistently
negative: libraries are not meeting faculty’s minimum expectations for “a
library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own.” Due to the
increasingly digital nature of journal collections as well as faculty
dependence on the library website to access them, future analysis should
explore the correlation between IC-2, IC-4 and IC-8. At the very least, it
appears that IC-2 may be “the next IC-8,” in terms of consistently negative
adequacy gaps. Further, the website may play a critical role in improving
journal collection and e-resource scores over time.
Figure 6
LibQUAL+® 2006-09,
information control adequacy gaps over time
Journal Ratings and Overall Satisfaction
Following up on Self’s correlation analysis of IC-8
and overall satisfaction (“How would you rate the overall quality of the
service provided by the library?”), additional correlations were run as part of
this study. In 2006, Self found a strong correlation of 0.84 between journal
collections and overall satisfaction. In 2009, a correlation of 0.71 was found
(Figure 7).
When reviewing the correlation between each item and
overall satisfaction with library services over time, IC-8 does show the
highest mean correlation (0.67) with the smallest standard deviation between
years (0.11). Looking at the correlations by year, 2008 shows the strongest
correlations between IC items and overall satisfaction, with a mean of 0.78 and
a standard deviation of 0.10. These correlation calculations would be stronger,
and perhaps more accurate, were they computed using the individual scores for
each faculty respondent from each institution, rather than the mean scores of
all faculty respondents at each institution.
In Table 1, there appear to be 2 clusters in the
correlations. IC-2, IC-3, IC-4, and IC-7 show correlations in the high 50s
across time. IC-1, IC-5, and IC-6 show correlations in the high 40s and low
50s. This may indicate that the collections, both print and electronic, and the
ability to access them easily, are of greater importance to faculty’s overall
satisfaction with library services.
Following Up at Columbia
Twenty-four follow-up phone interviews were conducted
with faculty from departments identified via LibQUAL+® scores as being
dissatisfied with library journal collections (Table 2). History faculty
members were not included in recruitment for this phase of the study. Faculty
members at Columbia were asked identical questions to those used at U.Va. in
2006. Faculty members were asked about whether journal collections were meeting
their minimum and desired service levels, as well as their preferences for print
or electronic journals.
Figure 7
LibQUAL+® 2009,
correlation of faculty satisfaction with journal collections (IC-8) and overall
library service from 21 libraries
Table 1
LibQUAL+® 2006-09, Correlation
Coefficient of IC-8 Adequacy Gap and Overall Library Service Score
IC Item |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
Standard Deviation |
Mean |
IC-1 |
0.44 |
0.61 |
0.44 |
0.55 |
|
0.08 |
0.51 |
IC-2 |
0.71 |
0.55 |
0.61 |
0.42 |
|
0.12 |
0.57 |
IC-3 |
0.86 |
0.42 |
0.31 |
0.73 |
|
0.26 |
0.58 |
IC-4 |
0.71 |
0.67 |
0.4 |
0.61 |
|
0.14 |
0.60 |
IC-5 |
0.72 |
0.49 |
0.27 |
0.45 |
|
0.19 |
0.48 |
IC-6 |
0.73 |
0.58 |
0.42 |
0.12 |
|
0.26 |
0.46 |
IC-7 |
0.81 |
0.46 |
0.40 |
0.67 |
|
0.19 |
0.59 |
IC-8 |
0.80 |
0.60 |
0.55 |
0.71 |
|
0.11 |
0.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard Deviation |
0.13 |
0.08 |
0.11 |
0.20 |
|
|
|
Mean |
0.72 |
0.55 |
0.43 |
0.53 |
|
|
|
Table 2
LibQUAL+®
2009, Columbia Disciplines with Negative Adequacy Gaps
Columbia
Discipline |
Phone
Interviews Conducted |
N for
LibQUAL+® 2009 |
2009 IC-8 Departmental
Mean Adequacy Gap |
Architecture |
5 |
8 |
-1.375 |
Business |
6 |
8 |
-0.125 |
Computer
Science |
4 |
3 |
-0.333 |
Engineering |
4 |
12 |
-0.583 |
History |
0 |
22 |
-0.318 |
Humanities |
5 |
60 |
-0.379 |
Math |
1 |
4 |
-0.750 |
Overall, participants responded positively regarding
the Libraries’ journal collections, stating that, yes, the collections meet the
minimum expectations. However, 15 of the 24 participants stated that, no, the
library is not meeting their desired level of service for journal collections.
Further probing uncovered some key issues: support, work-arounds,
search and online access, collection gaps, coverage, quick list, and resources.
(See Appendix A for additional quotes
from each category.)
Support: Service
Provided by Library Staff and Systems Regarding Journal Acquisition, Use or
Problems
These statements generally focused on the quality of
automated responses from library systems, or lack thereof. Service issues could
indicate a correlation between certain Affect of Service items and satisfaction
with journal collections. As the online collections continue to become more
complex to navigate, expert support from library staff will become more
important.
“What would be great for faculty would be if when
things are not available, there was one source in the library, extraordinarily
skilled at tracking down items. [. . .] This happens about once a week for me
that I need this service. [. . .] These people would be specialists in working
the electronic and journal capabilities.”
Work-Arounds: Faculty’s
Alternate Methods for Accessing the Journals They Need
There was some discussion about barriers to access
when using library resources. Expectedly, faculty will find their own ways to
access the articles they need, and are generally comfortable with their
work-arounds. These work-arounds seemed rather common, and often complex or
expensive. Librarians rarely played a role in these processes, as reported in
the interviews. While a primary concern is that faculty find access to
materials, through the library or otherwise, there are some clear disadvantages
to the work-arounds.
“I just buy them individually from my research funds,
so it’s coming out of my research money. I can afford to buy only individual
subscriptions, so I can’t share with my students.”
One professor reported an elaborate process of seeking
out articles for a course (after using CUL’s search tools without success) and
working with a colleague at another institution to get copies of the needed
articles. “It was kind of unwieldy, but I
got her on the phone and I needed six articles from the journal from different
years. We got on the phone and I would tell her the citation, and she would go
to her collections, download the PDF, and sent it to me.” This anecdote is
striking for two reasons. One: it has since been confirmed that CUL had subscribed to the journal in
question. Two: this professor did
reach out to a librarian for assistance, but remembers receiving no response.
Search and Online Access: Use of Online Tools to
Identify and Access Needed Information
Libraries typically present users with a series of
search tools developed by various vendors, based on widely differing search
processes. It is no wonder that search and interface design are key issues for
faculty. The comments on this topic reflect concerns about the Libraries’
catalog (CLIO), the journal search interface, and specific e-journal
interfaces. There was also some discussion of the quality of indexing for
journals – both print and electronic, and the ability to easily and efficiently
use the Libraries’ website to find them.
“I think just having free text search, like Google
book search, would be something that would be very, very useful to have. I
still feel like we are living 20 years behind where the rest of the world is in
terms of being able to search these databases and large collections of books
that we have.”
Collection Gaps: Instances
Where the Libraries Do Not Subscribe to a Particular Title, or Type of Journal
Foreign language journals were mentioned regularly.
When participants were asked if they request titles that the Libraries does not
currently subscribe to, most said no. The general sentiment was that the
process for requesting could be streamlined.
“There are things published around the world we don’t
have. Things that are between journals and edited books [. . .]. University
publications or things like that. Foreign journals.”
Interlibrary Loan (ILL) also plays an important role
in managing collection gaps. A few interview participants noted that they would
not be satisfied with the collections if ILL could not get items from other
libraries. “I don’t recall not being able
to get something at Columbia. And, when I needed it and they didn’t have it, it
was there through ILL.” The consequences of these collections gaps are
uncertain. One participant stated, “Fifty
percent of the time [that I can’t locate an item] I go without. Fifty percent
of the time I will email the authors or I will go to the author’s website.”
Coverage: Within a
Journal Title, There are Gaps in the Back-File Coverage
Complete coverage of a held title is consistently
desired. “Even if they’ve stopped issues
for a year or two, I think it’d be good if they could at least get the back
issues.”
There are also issues of coverage currentness,
particularly with e-journals. “One
obvious problem is that the [electronic] journals are always behind. We’re
sending students to the library to read more recent issues.”
Quick List: Desire for a Discipline-Specific “Quick
List” That Would Provide Easy Access to the Most Important Online Journals
These comments spoke directly to a relationship
between the online search interfaces (perhaps indicated in IC-2) and the
collections.
“If I was to give a suggestion, maybe to have
discipline-specific pointers that could help each discipline find things. [. .
.] We need help remembering how to use the interface. It’s more of an interface
issue than a collections issue.”
PDFs (Portable Document Format) were mentioned
frequently and have clearly become the preferred format for accessing
electronic content. Given that the Libraries’ website provides links to
multiple vendors for a particular title (each with its own access caveats)
there is a desire to know which one is “best.” “Best” would be, according to
interviews, the one vendor that provides complete coverage of a title and PDFs
for download.
Resources: The Libraries’ Allocation of Resources
Startlingly, two participants implied that they would
prefer to have library funds diverted from acquiring additional materials for
the collection, to making the collection more easily accessible.
“The size of the collection is not as important as
getting the current collection working as smooth as possible. Before, when we
used to go to the library, we got service.”
Print vs. Electronic
Regarding the preference for print or electronic, two
of twenty-four participants stated a clear preference for print. A small number
of participants responded that they would prefer to have both print and
electronic available (as is often the case, currently) or that print is preferable
for historic or archival materials only. Overwhelmingly, the flexibility and
access to electronic journals was highly desired and praised, particularly when
PDFs are available.
Some faculty stated that because some journals are
currently available in print, they expect to keep accessing them in this
manner. This may change over time, as more materials are digitized at higher
quality and made available online. One participant stated their preference for
electronic materials, noting “A few years
ago, I wouldn’t have said that. But, I guess things have changed.”
Remote Access
There were far fewer complaints about connecting to
online resources from off-campus than expected. The topic came up a handful of
times but was not at a “crisis” level for the majority of participants. In
general, this did not seem to be a barrier for using journal collections for
the majority of study participants.
Moving Forward at Columbia
As of the writing of this paper, the Collections &
Services directors, along with the Collection Development unit, are reviewing
the results of this study. It is expected that the interview information, along
with formal usability studies, will be useful in the upcoming redesign of the
Libraries’ website, as well as in the implementation of future search tools.
Columbia will continue to engage faculty in discussions about journal
collections. Their active involvement will be crucial in improving this area of
library service. LibQUAL+® scores and comments will continue to play a role in
tracking this issue at Columbia.
Conclusion
Returning to our initial motivation for this study –
“Given the substantial investment in journals at ARL libraries, why are faculty
at these institutions consistently dissatisfied with their library’s journal collections?”
– what have we learned? Without question, faculty at ARL libraries continue to
show dissatisfaction with journal collections, despite the continuing evolution
of access tools, delivery services, and growing collections which ARL libraries
provide. Given the economic downturn of 2010, LibQUAL+® scores may show a
noticeable decrease in satisfaction with journal collections, depending on the
impact of budget cuts throughout ARL libraries. Faculty at Columbia are
satisfied with many aspects of the journal collections the Libraries provide.
Of course, they also want easier access to online journals, reliable PDF
downloads, and better support from library systems and staff. Providing faculty
with discipline-specific “quick lists” may be one way to bridge the gap in
satisfaction with journal collections.
What, if anything, has changed since 2006? Relative
satisfaction with journal collections at ARL libraries has not changed
significantly. Faculty continue to show
dissatisfaction with journals collections across ARL libraries. While it may be
observed that desired scores for journal collections remain consistent and
minimum scores are on the rise, the gap between the minimum and “reality”
remains the same. And, it is a complex reality to navigate.
Information Control issues, as measured by LibQUAL+®,
continue to be top priority for faculty at ARL libraries, as well as a
consistent area of dissatisfaction. As seen from the LibQUAL+® scores, print
and electronic collections, including journals, and the ability of a library
website to provide easy access to materials, are critically important to
overall satisfaction with library services. As noted in the interviews, access
and use of journal collections is dramatically more complex when dealing with
electronic resources. Libraries will need to continue to address these needs by
re-allocating resources and staff to this growing area of service.
Finally, are there other Information Control items
that libraries should be watching? Yes: the library website – typically the
sole tool for accessing and using journal collections – is becoming an area of
consistent dissatisfaction among faculty. Journal collections, however,
continue to be the area of least satisfaction for faculty at institutions with
ARL libraries. It is expected that the relationship between the website and
collections will only strengthen over time, for better or worse.
Clearly, the issue of satisfaction with journal
collections is complex, ever-more technical, and faculty have little tolerance for
faulty systems. The evolution of the electronic journal collections and the
inherent access challenges will continue to play a critical role in faculty
satisfaction as libraries strive to provide ever-better service.
Acknowledgement
Special thanks to Rebecca Chovnick for her work as a
Research Assistant for this research project, and to Shanna Jaggars for her
assistance and advice regarding data analysis.
References
Cook, C., Davis, M., Heath, F., Kyrillidou, M., Thompson, B., and
Roebuck, G. (2009). LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Notebook.
Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
Cook, C., Kyrillidou, M., Heath, F., Sousa, J., Thompson, B., and
Webster, D. (2006). LibQUAL+® 2006 Survey
Notebook. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
Kyrillidou, M., & Bland, L. (2009).
ARL Statistics 2007-2008. Washington, DC: Association of Research
Libraries. Retrieved 30 May 2013 from
http://publications.arl.org/ARL-Statistics-2007-2008/
Self, J. (2008). Bound for disappointment: Faculty and journals at
research institutions. ARL: A Bimonthly
Report, 257, 7-11. Retrieved 30 May 2013 from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/arl-br-257.pdf
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative
Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Appendix A
Additional Quotes Arranged by Key Issues
Collection Gaps
“I tried to actually put in a request for this, but I
couldn’t find the web form.”
“I don’t know how easy it is to recommend a journal
you don’t have. […] Maybe that could be a little easier.”
“[…] We’re global, so for us not to have various
European or Asian journals, particularly older ones, is problematic.”
“I’ve started to tailor my searches to the journals I
know the library has.”
“Especially in foreign languages. Some of them are
quite new, you know, no one has probably ever requested them before.”
“Send out a list every year; we could submit a list of
what the library should [have].”
Interlibrary Loan
“There are so many other means of access, whether it’s via JSTOR or
Borrow Direct or some other resource. I always manage to get the article I’m
looking for.”
“I will say, it’s rare – ILL is wonderful; it’s rare that they [ILL]
can’t find a copy of an article somewhere or a journal somewhere. But, it can
take a very long time and sometimes on rare occasions, they can’t.”
Quick List
“[…] One thing that we used to have a long time ago
that’s no longer there is a list of the most commonly used journals, or the top
journals in economics and finance. So a page on the website that would then be
a collection of links to maybe the top thirty or so journals in economics and
finance, and just go there. It saves a few steps. It would be good to reinstate
that, and maybe have different lists for different departments.”
“On my web page I have my favorite journals, and it
worked fine until you changed it. […] So, originally, my idea of a home page
was one stop. Everything’s here. You don’t have to do anything else.”
“It would be
nice if there was just a quick list and easy guide to the most popular titles.”
“To create real interface pages for particular
disciplines and fields that are annotated connections to journals online and
databases.”
“If there’s an opportunity to improve the web
interfaces, and add discipline-specific hints for navigating to the online
collections. I don’t do it often enough to always remember how to do it.”
“You know, top ten lists of highly recommended books
or articles that someone has really benefitted from. And, I suppose if the
library had some way of selecting things that would be specifically of interest
and very targeted, that might make a difference.”
Resources
“Don’t touch the collection, and put the money into
figuring out how to be able to use it off campus or on, so it’s transparent.”
“The collection is a pain. It’s throwing away money
until I can use it.”
“That would be something I would have the field of
librarianship work on. How to use the technology to make it more user-friendly,
rather than spend resources trying to collect print.”
Search and Online Access
“In CLIO, if I want to do a search, it’s not always
accurate as to what journals are available and what we don’t have. So, you have
to go through multiples resources to know for sure.”
“There might be
a way to streamline ways of downloading articles. Sometimes you go to the web
site and see five different sources for the same journal. One’s cleaner, some
are better formatted, some are the same, and it’s not always easy to tell which
ones are best. […] If there’s five sources someone could go through them and see
which ones are best.”
“I counted once how many times I had to click to get
to what I wanted, finally in PDF form, and it was something like ten clicks.”
“I had the
impression that, depending on how I searched [in the catalog], I would get
completely different results.”
“I’ll be browsing nature.com and then I’d like to read
an article and there’s no easy way for me to suddenly be at that same page but
logged in with my CU credentials. Instead I have to open a new browser and go
through Columbia’s interface to get back to the same page […] That’s certainly
consistent with the minimum required.”
“Sometimes it’s a bit difficult. Sometimes I just go
and talk to a reference librarian because I’m not very good at navigating the
system.”
Support
“I want a response that someone got my request. And if
nothing happens, someone to call.”
“I need training.”
“I do always feel that if I have any questions that I
always get a sense of helpfulness in all the libraries.”
Work-Arounds
“I’ve never had any problems getting what I wanted,
but that’s also because I have a research assistant.”
“If it’s directly in my work, I’ll just buy it
myself.”
“When I can’t find something through ILL, I ask
colleagues in the field if they know of a place to get it, and then to
resources of their university. Can they make a copy of the given article or
something like that.”
“I personally
subscribe to several journals which are the ones that I most read. Which are
the ones that I would most read if they were in the library, but I have them myself
as part of, in some cases, society memberships.”