Biology and Life Sciences Planning Team Report (FINAL DRAFT) 12/23/2009 Executive Summary The University Library is exploring options for new service models and potential consolidations within the departmental library system. The Biology and Life Sciences Planning Team was formed to evaluate the current state of library services in these subject areas on the Urbana campus. Our charge included: 1) identifying opportunities for new services; 2) identifying areas of possible collaboration with Library user groups; and 3) proposing options for the consolidation of libraries, particularly the Biology Library in Burrill Hall. This report contains the results our studies and recommendations for further action. Based on a review of the current and historical use of material housed in the Biology Library, as well as our own survey of the Biology Library users, we have identified several areas where the Libraries can be more involved in life sciences research and education. Addressing the technological developments in scholarly communication and the specific information needs in the biological sciences provide several opportunities for Library involvement and collaborative instruction in life sciences research and education programs. We do not recommend closing the Biology Library at this time. However, we do believe the life sciences can be served by a facility that is much smaller in terms of square footage, size of collection, and staff. A leaner library that is better equipped technologically, with improved study spaces, continuing access to a librarian and the core biology materials would provide significant cost savings to the University Library and remain an important part of the research and education process in the life sciences. Background The Biology and Life Sciences Planning Team was charged with evaluating the coordination, integration, and enhancement of UIUC Library services delivered in support of research and education programs in the life sciences (Attachment 1). In doing so, we were to keep in mind the un‐sustainability of the existing network of departmental libraries, the need to address the new ways in which faculty and students access and make use of print and digital content, and the Library Administration’s desire to integrate existing Library service programs. The Team met seven times during the period September 24 though mid December. Our primary data collection tool was an all‐campus survey specifically targeting life sciences faculty, students and staff. The survey was conducted November 23‐ December 6, with an extension provided through December 18. In addition to the survey results, reports previously prepared by the University Library’s Life Sciences Division units were consulted and provided valuable input in the Team’s evaluations and recommendations. The Team’s specific charge, along with the supporting documentation, is provided in appendices attached to this document. 1 Guiding Principles and Goals In developing our recommendations, the Biology and Life Sciences Planning Team remained cognizant of the Library’s New Service Model goals: establishing a sustainable framework for Library service built on our commitment to provide access to rich collections, state­of­the­art facilities, and expert faculty and professional staff; providing facilities, collections, and services that support teaching, learning, and research in the contemporary information environment; improving access to Library materials by addressing long­term collection management concerns, e.g., backlogs in their processing; enhancing the security of Library materials by addressing long­term collection management concerns, e.g., the need for appropriate curatorial control for rare books, special collections, and archival materials; and Identifying new services, as well as new approaches to traditional services, that will ensure the central role of the Library in the academic enterprise for the twenty first century Setting By all measures and indications, the traditional use of libraries, their print collections, and the services they provide are in a period of transition. Due to the changing nature of the information environment, especially in the sciences, fewer people need to access print material as more and more content is made available electronically. Communication between library staff and users is increasingly electronic and continues to advance rapidly with the advent of enhanced social networking tools. The physical Library facilities are becoming more valued as study space – both interactive and private – than as storehouses of printed knowledge. The traditional role libraries have played for centuries in higher education and research has changed dramatically in less than a generation. The decentralized departmental library system, strongly ingrained here at the University of Illinois, was once the idealized model of information service. These subject‐specific collections provided print resources and subject expertise in close proximity to those who needed them. Today, the highly decentralized library model no longer stands as an example of best practice. The increasingly interdisciplinary nature of research, the high costs associated with maintaining multiple service points, and the need for innovation and staff agility in providing new services argue against the information silos of the compartmentalized library system. In January 2009, Provost Katehi, in a letter to University Librarian Paula Kaufman, asked among other things, that the physical and life science libraries on the Urbana Campus explore ways of consolidation. Addressing the Provost’s letter, along with our own acknowledgement of the changing environment in which we work, were the primary drivers in the establishment of New Service Model teams focusing on the science libraries. 2 The University of Illinois Life Sciences Libraries consist of the Applied Health Sciences Library, the Biology Library, the Funk Family College of ACES Library, and the Veterinary Medicine Library. Close ties are also maintained with two other related libraries on campus, the Institute of Natural Resources and Sustainability Library (formerly Illinois Natural History Survey) and the UIC Library of the Health Sciences‐Urbana. These six libraries are the primary service points and collection locations for their disciplines. There are significant additional holdings of life science material, primarily older books, bound journals, and foreign language materials in the Main Library and the Oak St. high density storage facility. In addition to the print material, an extensive collection of life science resources are available electronically to all campus affiliates regardless of location or time of day. The availability of these resources has allowed the creation of the Biotechnology Librarian position, a librarian who is available in the Institute of Genomic Biology (IGB), but also elsewhere as needed. This position is not tied to a specific collection since a great majority of the information content she works with is electronic. Over the past three months, the Biology and Life Sciences Planning Team has reviewed usage statistics of the life science libraries, previous self‐analysis reports generated by the life science librarians, and most recently, feedback from life sciences library users themselves resulting from our online survey. The comments and recommendations in this report are based on the collective input of the teams’ membership. Our opinions were not unanimous, but the recommendations reflect the general consensus that the information environment is rapidly changing, traditional libraries are struggling to maintain relevance in an increasingly competitive market, and recognition of the un‐sustainability of existing departmentalized library system on this campus. Previous Studies The Life Sciences Division librarians prepared a document in March 2009 that addressed the issue of consolidating libraries and sharing service responsibilities (Attachment 2). Each library was tasked with analyzing their collections, identifying necessary services that would need to be maintained, and developing likely scenarios for mergers. The Division also identified several new service initiatives that could be offered that may benefit the users of the life sciences libraries. In this study, the possibility for the Biology Library’s closure and consolidation with other libraries is discussed. The recommended action, if one had to be made, was the merger of biology and agriculture collections in the Funk/ACES Library. In addition to the Division report, other statistical reports and use studies were reviewed (Attachments 3, 3a). The Biology Library The Biology Library collects in all areas of the basic, as opposed to applied, biological sciences from ecology to molecular biology. In the past few decades, biologists have answered many of the foundational questions in the life sciences leading to a boom in interdisciplinary studies and translational opportunities turning basic research into practical applications benefiting people and the environment we live in. As a result, the basic biology research is used by bioinformatics researchers, genome researchers, engineers, human and veterinary medical researchers, agriculture researchers, 3 environmentalists, psychologists, and anthropologists in addition to the “traditional” biochemists, biophysicists, paleontologists, and biostatisticians. While the most easily identified users of the Biology Library are the faculty and students of the School of Integrative Biology and the School of Molecular and Cellular Biology, in practice the collection is used by far more individuals and departments. Faculty, staff, and graduate students from at least 34 departments and institutes representing 5 colleges (LAS, ACES, Engineering, Medicine, and Veterinary Medicine) responded to the NSM survey. This is in keeping with previous library‐wide surveys of library users in which individuals from 30‐40 departments listed the Biology Library as either their primary or second most heavily used library. The NSM survey respondents included at least 22 buildings as their primary work locations, from Beckman Institute in the north to Vet Med Clinical Science Building and Forbes Natural History Building in the south. In the spring of 2009, a group of undergraduates surveyed patrons working in the Reading Room of the Biology Library on their interest in e‐textbooks. As part of this effort, they discovered that the students studied in the Biology Library primarily because of its location. The majority (61%) were third and fourth year students; 31% were freshmen and sophomores, and 7% of survey respondents were graduate students. Only half of the respondents were biology students. Our Survey The existing studies were performed by and for the Libraries. However, they were inward‐looking documents based on the collection size, use patterns, and processing details. Lacking was meaningful library user input. The Biology and Life Sciences Team decided to conduct an online survey of likely and potential users of life sciences information on the Urbana campus, particularly targeting users of the Biology Library. The online survey ran for three weeks, from late November to early December. There were 240 faculty, staff and student respondents to the questionnaire, offering their opinions on a number of topics related to the provision of library services in the life sciences and the Biology Library. The survey itself (Attachment 4) and a summary of responses (Attachment 5) are included with this report. What became clear is that the Biology Library, and other life science libraries as well, are used differently by different user groups. Faculty responses to the survey indicate that departmental libraries are useful for quick and easy access to print materials. However, the number of times faculty actually visit the physical library has greatly diminished over the last several years as more book and journal content has been made available online. While most think of a local library as a “good thing” to have, the actual demonstrated use (or lack thereof) is revealed by very few visits to the physical locations. Undergraduates on the other hand, are frequent users of the library space, but not necessarily the collections. They visit the library to study, meet with classmates, use the public work stations and other equipment. Graduate students seem to bridge these two extremes, but still rely heavily on the electronic resources more than print and primarily use the library as a study space. 4 Library collection development is based on the subject knowledge of the librarians, an understanding of local needs, and effective communications with library user groups. We conclude that the library’s collection development efforts (both physical and electronic) are meeting most of the information needs of students, staff, and faculty in the life sciences. This assumption is supported by many favorable comments in the survey and an absence of complaints about not having necessary material or online access to resources. Comments were consistently favorable regarding the knowledge and helpfulness of the library staff. However, we cannot help but be a little disappointed with results of the survey regarding use of the library’s services and the value‐added resources they provide. The library home pages, resource guides, and subject pathfinders garnered little attention from the survey respondents. However, this is somewhat understandable given the multiple access points provided to our rich online content and the many overlapping and competing information resources available. It may also be that in this information age, users simply expect (without thinking about it) user‐friendly on‐line access to electronic databases and simply take web access for granted. The lack of complaints about the available electronic gateways to the library's collections therefore suggests that these gateways are meeting user needs. The information obtained through the survey was a valuable resource in developing our recommendations. In addition to gathering thoughts and opinions on our physical and virtual resources, opportunities were provided that allowed open ended comments on services people would like to see the Library provide. Suggestions included the integration of library and information content with classroom instruction, specific training needs in molecular biology information resources, and statistical software instruction. This information will be useful in establishing new programs and initiatives between subject libraries and the schools and departments served. The University Library is also interested in connecting users with its new data services units, such as the Illinois Informatics Institute (I3), Reference, Research and Government Information Services (RRGIS), the Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (IDEALS), and other e‐Science initiatives. Opportunities may arise to team resource and subject specialists with specific users needing assistance and to collaborate with broader array of user groups. A more complete list of new service suggestions is provided in the Recommendations section. The survey responses made it quite clear that the library’s role on campus is fundamentally changing. The physical facilities of the departmental libraries are used mainly as study halls and computer labs. The enormous amount of square footage devoted to stacks of books and journals goes relatively unvisited. More space needs to be provided to users and the space currently occupied by unused collections can be freed up and more effectively provided in easy access, high density storage. Online resources, (i.e. the library catalog, databases, and related search and discovery tools) provide access to an increasingly electronic world of scholarly communication. The library staff remains essential for helping users navigate the myriad options of access, identifying and introducing new resources, and assisting in finding elusive content. In addition, the information resources made available through the Library need managers to ensure the effective use of University funds and for keeping abreast of new opportunities and interests within their subject areas. The physical library facilities of the past are in a 5 time of transition. We believe it is time to consolidate departmental libraries where it makes sense, both economically and collaboratively, for the betterment of the University and the students and faculty who make up the primary user base. Recommendations Charge: Identify opportunities for enhanced collaboration in the design and delivery of Library services to support research, teaching, and learning in the biological and life sciences across the Urbana campus. The survey has helped us identify several areas of unmet needs that may be addressed by the Library or through collaborative efforts with other life sciences groups on campus. The following areas were highly cited by survey respondents (ranked by number with 5 or more respondents): Statistics / Statistical Analysis software packages and applications Molecular / Genomic Database (NCBI) Instruction Bioinformatics tools Bibliographic Management software (Refworks/Endnote, etc) Visual / Imaging software GIS software / applications Database and Information Management software / applications Microarray Analysis Bibliographic Database Searching Librarians have the expertise to address some of these areas, such as NCBI instruction, bibliographic software, database searching, etc. The identified needs in statistical analysis software, visual/imaging software, etc, will require collaboration with others outside the library. We believe these areas provide opportunities to deliver important, useful, and ongoing training activities that bridge library resources with needed research and education applications. Also, as previously mentioned, there is interest in collaborative resource sharing and training opportunities with new Library‐wide initiatives that overlap with several of these areas. A descriptive analysis of this part of the survey, including a breakdown of user groups, is available in Attachment 6. We recommend another team, with Life Science Division representation, be established to further explore the training needs and opportunities for collaboration identified in this study and specifically outlined in Attachment 6. 6 Charge: Regarding the specific recommendation on the future of the Biology Library in Burrill Hall. In developing a recommendation on the matter of closing of the library, three options emerged: 1. Reduce the library presence in Burrill Hall, but do not eliminate it; 2. Explore opportunities for combining all the science libraries (except Grainger) in this part of campus into one facility; or 3. Close the Biology Library completely, relocating all collections and services to other libraries. The Biology and Life Sciences Planning Team recommends Option 1‐ a continued, though significantly reduced, library in Burrill Hall. The Biology Library presence can be significantly downsized in terms of collections, square footage, and staff. Improved campus delivery of the Library’s print resources means that the bulk of the collection need not be housed on the four levels now occupied by the Biology Library. Instead we recommend the following: a) Relocate the bulk of the collection to other locations such as Funk ACES, Main Stacks, and Oak St. b) Work closely with other interested life sciences groups in the redeployment and transition of the vacated space to include the following: An office for the Biology Librarian A non‐circulating course reserve collection Adequate group and individual study space for Biology Students A pick‐up and drop off point for material requested from other libraries A number of public access computers, scanners, and wi‐fi connectivity There will be needs by other groups that can be negotiated as part of the Biology Library’s remaining presence (computer labs, instructional space, meeting rooms, etc. The Schools of Integrative Biology and of Molecular and Cellular Biology are in need of new space and we believe they would be interested in helping with the design of a new floor plan. In addition, these groups may have programs complementary to library services that could potentially develop into partnerships that save both organizations personnel and facility costs. The space (square footage) of this new library facility may be one‐quarter or less the size of that currently occupied by the existing library. It is expected that the Biology Library’s “working” collection (new books and the subset of the collection that has actually circulated in the past few years), would be split between Funk/ACES and the Main Stacks. The remaining bulk of the collection would be transferred to Oak Street. This process will require a significant amount of planning and coordination before the first book is moved, and there will be major costs involved in the processing and relocation of 7 the materials. We recommend an implementation team be established to explore the possibilities outlined in this proposal. The second option, to begin planning for a combined science library in the north campus area, is an exciting possibility, but one that would be highly dependent on new funding. Presently, there are several libraries– Biology, Chemistry, UIC Health Sciences, and Mathematics north of the Quad and south of Green St. With time, money, and the proper planning, there might be an opportunity to combine some, or all, of these libraries into one facility. Exploring the possibilities and discussing options should begin now. In the meantime, Biology can start downsizing their collection in a well‐
planned, methodical manner using existing personnel and working within the Library’s logistical capabilities. This option does not meet the immediate New Service Model goals, but we believe the opportunities exist with this option to provide win/win scenarios for all the interested parties. Closing the Biology Library is the least desirable option and is not recommended at this time. The complete absence of a physical library presence in Burrill Hall will be problematic for many, and as a result, may reflect negatively on the University Library. We acknowledge this option has worked effectively for several smaller departmental libraries, but the size and scope of the Biology Library’s working collection makes it unwieldy and not a good fit within any other existing collection on campus. Surveys have shown that users of the Biology Library use several other libraries as well. For this reason, and because of the overlap of subject areas among all the science libraries, members of this committee think future library strategic planning should focus on science libraries as a group, rather than individual “targets of opportunity.” This would maximize options of the life and physical science libraries for users from all units and ensure services and resources are available equitable across campus. Attachments: 1) Biology and Life Science Team Charge 2) Life Sciences Division Proposal (separate pdf) 3) Previous Biology Library use statistics (separate pdf) 3a) UIUC Science Library Collections (separate pdf) 4) Survey (separate pdf) 5) Survey Results (separate pdf) 6) Themes from Survey Questions 15‐18 on Services Related to Data and Computing
8 Recommendation
Specific Recommendations
Implementation
Phase
Identify areas of possible collaboration with Library user groups
We recommend a study team, with representation from the Library Life Sciences Division, GSLIS, I3, MCB, and IB be established to further explore the training needs and opportunities for collaboration identified in this study and specifically outlined in Attachment 6. Within the next six
months .
No cost to
the Library at
this time.
Reduce the Biology Library presence in Burrill Hall
We recommend an implementation team be established to execute the downsizing of the Biology Library. Team membership should include representatives from the Biology Library, University Library( Main Stacks), the Library Life Sciences Division, Funk ACES Library, MCB and IB. Immediately
Costs will
depend on
the scale of
the relo­
cation effort
9 Cost
Attachment 1 Biology and Life Sciences Planning Team Background As part of the New Service Models discussions conducted during Spring 2009, several proposals were reviewed related to coordination, integration, and enhancement of Library services delivered in support of interdisciplinary research and teaching in the life sciences. While the specifics of individual proposals differed, each was informed by common concerns regarding the sustainability of the existing network of departmental libraries, the need to address the changes in the ways in which faculty and students access and make use of print and digital content in these fields, and the desire to look across the current Library service program (including programs supported by the Institute for Natural Resource Sustainability and the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Library of the Health Sciences) to determine how best to plan for ongoing support for the Urbana campus commitment to interdisciplinary initiatives in the life sciences. Charge The Biology and Life Sciences Planning Team will: Engage and consult with members of academic communities with regard to the delivery of Library services meant to support research, teaching, and learning in the biological and life sciences. Identify opportunities for enhanced collaboration in the design and delivery of Library services to support research, teaching, and learning in the biological and life sciences across the Urbana campus, and inclusive of the services and expertise currently housed in the Institute for Natural Resource Sustainability and the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Library of the Health Sciences Establish a liaison to the Health Information Services Planning Team Charge in order to facilitate the development of a set of recommendations in the area of Biology and Life Sciences that will complement those coming from this related planning effort Address the specific recommendation discussed during Spring 2009 to close the Biology Library in Burrill Hall and to integrate some or all of its service program into the Funk Family Library while pursuing opportunities for possible alignment of appropriate Biology Library services with the Chemistry Library and/or the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Library of the Health Sciences at Urbana. Provide a report of its discussions and planning recommendations to the University Librarian and Dean of Libraries by December 15, 2009 Members School of Integrative Biology: 

Fred Delcomyn (former Director of SIB, physiology, neurobiology, and entomology) Bettina Francis (Entomology) School of Molecular & Cellular Biology: 
David Clayton (Associate Director for Undergraduate Curriculum, MCB) Life science faculty outside the School of Life Sciences: 

John MacMullen (GSLIS, M.S. in Bioinformatics Steering Committee) Romana Nowak (Profesor, Animal Science, ACES) Library faculty: 



Greg Youngen (Vet Med Library), Team Leader Pat Allen (Funk Family Library) Diane Schmidt (Biology Library) Scott Walter (Associate University Librarian for Services), Administrative Liaison Library staff: 
Ruby Jahr (Biology Library) Submitted to the Executive Committee for consideration: July 2009 Approved by the Executive Committee: August 10, 2009 Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Life Sciences Division Plan March 12, 2009 The University Libraries Life Sciences Division, consisting of the Applied Health Sciences, Biology, Funk ACES, and Veterinary Medicine libraries, offers the following proposal to address the Library Administration’s request to expedite the transitioning of our services and physical facilities to meet the goals set forth in the Provost’s letter of January 15, 2009. The Life Sciences Division acknowledges the changing library environment in which we work and the evolving use patterns of our clientele. While we have only been working on the plan outlined below for a month, we’ve been identifying trends and developing ideas for our libraries and services for years. We appreciate this opportunity to bring several of these ideas to light. A major part of this plan calls for the Funk Library to serve as the central facility around which our specialized life sciences collections and services can continue to grow. We have identified a number of new activities and personnel moves that can be made immediately to address current needs. We’re also proposing the merger of the Biology and Funk ACES Libraries into a central life sciences hub. Further out on the timeline, we are considering the eventual closing of the Veterinary Medicine Library and merging its collection with Funk. The Applied Health Sciences Library may also consider a number of options as space for collections and suitable service models are developed. While not specifically mentioned in this proposal, we also need to consider the future of the Illinois Natural History Survey and the UIC Health Sciences‐Urbana libraries. These libraries provide essential collections and services for the life sciences on this campus, but remain separate entities from the UIUC Libraries, and thus beyond the scope of this proposal. We envision the life sciences library collections and services emanating from the Funk Library hub with satellite operations, both physical and virtual, touching nearly every discipline on campus. We also realize the limitations of the Funk Library’s office and shelf space. So while our offices may be physically located in different areas of campus, and our print collections housed in various locations, the core facility, collections, and staff will be centered at the Funk Library. There is still much to be determined with regards to the Biology, Applied Health Sciences, and Veterinary Medicine libraries. There are several valid reasons for maintaining their existing collections and service points that, for many, will outweigh any cost‐saving realized from their closing at this time. Some of these reasons are outlined in the individual library reports, others will surface as the plans get a more public hearing. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute our thoughts on the future of library and information services for the Life Sciences constituency of this campus. Our plans will have enormous impact on our users for many years to come. We realize also, that the status quo cannot be maintained and we stand ready and willing to implement new ideas that make sense now and for the future. Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 1) New initiatives that can be implemented immediately: Melody Allison, Biology Library, will begin part‐time in the Funk Library starting the first summer session of 2009 and move to full‐time by August 16. Greg Youngen, Vet Med Library, will assist in Funk with instruction and reference as needed. Implement collaborative instruction as outlined the new Funk initiative. IM and Chat reference support will be expanded throughout all LSD units this semester. Expedite Biology and Funk Library collection transfers to Main Stacks and Oak St. Aggressive acquisition of electronic journal backfiles will continue as funding allows. Implement an on‐demand scanning and document delivery of print articles/book chapters. This would be a quick‐turnaround (1 hr or less) photocopy (scan & email) service for journal articles not available electronically. (This would operate independently from IRRC or anything IPM does for e‐reserves). Merge the Life Sciences and Physical Sciences Divisions, or create an even larger Public Services Division that spans all disciplines. Identify life science documents for digitization and work with DCC to fast‐track the process. Establish a Divisional tiered reference service that’s capable of addressing reference questions effectively and efficiently from a variety of locations. 2) Establish the Funk Library as the Life Sciences Library The Funk Life Sciences Library will serve the information needs of the students and researchers traditionally served by the Life Sciences Division (Colleges of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences, the Schools of Life Sciences and eventually, Veterinary Medicine). In addition, together with our colleagues in several other libraries, we will meet the needs of the emerging areas of translational biology, bioinformatics, and bioengineering. We expect to play leading roles in assisting the researchers preserve and enhance access to their publications and data through e‐
science initiatives and IDEALS. Specific details are addressed in the attached Funk Library document. 3) The Biotechnology Librarian serves as a model for new service initiatives. A positive example of collaborative work on web resource development The Biotech position successfully illustrates the “library(ian) without walls” concept Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Demonstrated that it is not necessary to be physically imbedded, but culturally imbedded. In tune with the information needs of particular user groups. Establishing contacts and channels of communications within academic courses and new research groups. 4) The Applied Health Sciences Library As is most feasible, the AHS Library will begin taking further advantage of central approaches to journal check‐in, print reserves, and e‐reserves, while continuing to provide appropriate services for AHS clientele. The AHS Library will continue to identify affinities with the UIC Library of the Health Sciences‐Urbana, and will begin identifying potential collaborations with a broader array of social and behavioral science disciplines. The Applied Health Sciences Library proposal is attached. 5) The Biology Library Biology is the core Life Sciences component. It forms the foundation of all our allied collections. We believe this collection should remain intact. If Biology cannot remain in Burrill Hall, we recommend all components be moved to the Funk Library. The collection would have to be downsized, but sub‐disciplines should not be extracted. If the Biology Library is successfully transformed to a “learning commons” area, it may serve as a model for other units, including Vet Med. Biology Library proposal is attached. 6) The Veterinary Medicine Library Vet Med will operate in closer cooperation with the Funk Library. Vet Med will explore the concept of a shared staffing model that operates as a branch of the Funk Library while maintaining all expected services and hours of operation at CVM. Vet Med will begin planning for the eventual consolidation with the Funk Library. Vet Med Library considerations document attached. Attachments: 1. Applied Health Sciences Library 2. Biology Library 3. Veterinary Medicine Library 4. Envisioning What the Funk Library Could Be Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Attachment 1: Applied Health Sciences Library It is important for the College of AHS to maintain its library’s current identity and the cohesiveness of its collection. We propose that the AHS Library remain in its current central location, and will adjust our operations to realize savings in other ways. The AHS Library presents a more complex picture than most departmental libraries because of its high use patterns and the characteristics of its holdings. The AHS Library is used heavily by a large cohort of students who consider it a central gathering place for academic work. AHS has a significant portion of students from under‐represented classes (20%) for whom strong social networks are a key to retention. The AHS Library is successful in strengthening their community. Developing a sustainable AHS Library service model involves collaboration with other library units and a sharing of campus resources. The overarching research and teaching focus of the College is preventing chronic disease and promoting health and wellness across the lifespan. This focus has close affinity with the health and behavioral sciences. The College of AHS is multidisciplinary by nature and the AHS Library currently supports the College’s four accredited programs. The College of AHS is bringing to campus two new degree programs in health: the graduate level Masters in Public Health (MPH) and the undergraduate Interdisciplinary Health (I‐health). To meet growing curriculum needs in the health sciences, the Library must partner closely with the UIC Library of the Health Sciences to develop collections and instructional services that serve common goals. Health sciences literature is specialized, and it has not been a traditional strength of this campus. There is a need for increased instruction on health sciences search tools and the complex methods of accessing information that is not available on campus. To meet this growing need we will collaborate throughout the Library to build synergies and forge a new approach to information literacy in the health sciences. The approach will be similar to that used for the Health Information Portal. Faculty in AHS pursue research collaborations with counterparts in fields as diverse as engineering, nutrition, immunology, neuroscience, and sociology, psychology and human and community development, for example. Research is primarily directed at improving health and well‐being with college‐wide research initiatives in the areas of aging and disability. The many aspects of sport and its role as exercise are also predominant subjects. While it is important for the AHS Library to maintain its present library collaborations with physical sciences and engineering and life sciences, we will also benefit from building stronger collaborative relationships with the UIC Library of the Health Sciences Urbana branch and complementary behavioral science disciplines. The following adjustments to operations are being implemented to realize cost savings. In FY09, the AHS Library’s student wage budget was reduced by 20% and its GA position eliminated. We also propose that the AHS Library reduce open hours in the following manner. 1) Eliminate evening hours during summer term II semester (a net reduction of 8 hours/week in summer). 2) During fall and spring semesters, eliminate Saturday afternoon hours and reduce open hours on Sunday to 2pm‐8pm (a net reduction of 5 hours/week in fall and spring). These Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 reductions in open hours for FY10 would immediately net another savings of 22% in the AHS Library’s student wage budget. We believe that in the future, the AHS collection could be serviced more from central Main Library points. We could take further advantage of central journal check‐in, and of central print reserves, especially for lower level undergrad courses. AHS faculty already utilizes electronic reserves, but we could promote this service even more. By migrating some servicing of the collection to central points, the two civil service staff in the AHS Library can begin to take on new roles, whether in the AHS Library or elsewhere in the Library. The two staff are highly valued by the College for their active role in providing assistance to students in the AHS Library. If the circulation, shelving and retrieval functions were taken over and handled consistently and effectively by a centrally managed pool, the librarian and staff would be more available to contribute to public service in the unit and beyond, and to Library‐wide service initiatives, such as chat reference, IDEALS, digitizing, etc. Further, with less supervisory responsibility, the librarian would be free to focus on collection development, explore more customized services and faculty liaison activity, pursue collaborative instruction projects, yet still offer specialized reference service during office hours in the unit. Staff collection support will continue to be required until the Library transitions to fuller electronic access. In response to the Provost’s request for more efficiency in Library service, the AHS Library proposes to operate more efficiently, yet build on the successes already achieved. This plan presents a cautious yet realistic approach to planning for the future, but in this case, the caution is warranted because the AHS Library is used heavily as a central gathering place, it ranks among the top 25% of library units in gate count, active circulation, and reference queries answered, and it is integral to the mission of the College of Applied Health Sciences. Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Attachment 2: Biology Library The Provost tasked the University Library with integrating the Biology Library in to the Funk Library and creating a Life Sciences hub. Alternative proposals for closing the Biology Library were raised during the planning process, but the Life Sciences Division is in agreement that merging the Biology Library into the Funk Library is the best response to the Provost’s challenge. As a result of this merger, life sciences materials and services will be available for more hours each day. The merged collections complement each other and will create a broader and deeper collection. Other details of this plan are laid out elsewhere. As part of this New Service Model, the Biology Librarian will work with the two schools of life sciences currently served by the Biology Library to develop a computer commons/reading room in Burrill Hall with office hours for the librarian, managed and staffed by the school(s). We seek funding for as many of the remaining backfiles as possible (in particular the $90,000 Oxford University Press Science package) and flip as many remaining Biology print subscriptions as we can to electronic access. Biology is the core of the life sciences and one of the most significant subjects on campus with our new focus on translational research. The “pure” biological research reported in core biological journals are used by applied researchers in agriculture, veterinary medicine, human medicine, bioengineering, conservation, business, psychology, and many more fields. In addition, researchers in other “pure” sciences such as anthropology, chemistry, physics, geology, and mathematics utilize these resources. Molecular biology, especially, forms the foundation for research in innumerable fields across the sciences. The School of Life Sciences split into two separate schools several years ago, the School of Integrative Biology (SIB) (consisting of Animal Biology, Entomology, and Plant Biology) and the School of Molecular and Cellular Biology (SMCB) (Biochemistry, Cell and Developmental Biology, Microbiology, and Molecular and Integrative Physiology). The Department of Biochemistry was formerly part of the School of Chemical Sciences but moved to SMCB. The collection responsibility remained with the Chemistry Library. From this description, it is clear that there is overlap in SMCB with the chemical sciences faculty, but also with agriculture, vet med, health sciences (applied and basic), psychology, engineering, and many other fields. SIB interests overlap with ACES and the Natural History Survey as well as all of the SMCB related areas listed above. SIB faculty and students use more print‐based and historical materials than SMCB faculty on the whole, but there is so much overlap between the subdisciplines and their use of the literature that generalizations are almost always wrong. Molecular biology resources are routinely used by researchers and students in all three of the SIB departments, for instance. A combined Biology and Chemistry Library has been proposed by the Library Administration. After discussing the issue with Tina Chrzastowski, the Chemistry Librarian, we are in agreement that it is not possible to combine all aspects of biology that are currently handled by the Biology Library in the Chemistry Library. The Chemistry Library has about 15,000 volumes and could make room for about 6,000 volumes from Biology. The Biology Library currently holds about Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 230,000 volumes. Of these, an estimated 12,000 monograph volumes have circulated in the last 5 years, based on a Voyager report that includes analytics and other problems. Most of our current journal subscriptions, including backfiles, are available online and can go to remote storage, but there is a significant subset that is still used and is not available electronically, perhaps about 25,000 volumes. Shrinking the Biology collection dramatically enough to fit in the current Chemistry Library space would be a serious disservice to the users of the material. In addition, moving the Biology Library services to the Chemistry Library does not advance the proposal to make the Funk Library into a life sciences hub, since the core biology materials and services would be held elsewhere. An alternative is to split the collection and disciplinary responsibilities that are currently managed by the Biology Library into molecular and cellular biology on the one hand, and integrative biology on the other hand, with MCB collections and responsibilities going to a combined Chemistry/MCB library in the current Noyes Lab space. The Integrative Biology materials and services would go to the Funk Library, with the Biology Librarian splitting time between Chemistry and Funk. While it is possible to divide the collection by call number, faculty and students in each school utilize materials across the call number range and would need to go to both the Chemistry and Funk facilities, thus doubling the number of libraries they need to use, not decreasing it. This is not a satisfactory option since the molecular and cellular biology materials are complementary to both the integrative biology materials and the collections in the Funk Library. Combining these collections will allow users to browse the collection as a coherent whole and will allow services that relate to MCB to be focused in the life sciences hub, not split between libraries. Since keeping the Biology Library open in its current space is not an option, the Life Sciences Division feels that merging the Biology Library collection and services with the Funk Library as part of the process of creating a Life Sciences hub rather than drastically shrinking and splitting the collection and services as part of a temporary Biology‐Chemistry library is the best outcome for life scientists across campus. Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Attachment 3: Veterinary Medicine Library There are a number of significant issues that will influence the decision and timeline to close the Veterinary Medicine Library and consolidate the collections and services with Funk ACES. The merger of the two libraries would result in an improved collection by combining their animal health sciences and nutrition collection strengths. The Vet Med Librarian could also provide much needed support in ACES, even in a part‐time capacity, due to their existing unfilled professional positions. The two FTE Vet Med staff members would then be available for reassignment, and over $12,000 in student wage expenditures would be saved by the Library. The issues that would need to be addressed before such a move could take place are outlined below. While the issues may take time to resolve, planning and preparation for the merger could begin almost immediately in order to set up the logistics needed to facilitate the physical relocations later on. Accreditation issue The UI College of Veterinary Medicine is accredited by the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA Accreditation Policies have a specific standard for library support for the colleges.1 While this standard is open to some interpretation, it should be noted that the accredited veterinary schools in the US and Canada do maintain an identifiable library collection and librarian to address this requirement. The University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine is next scheduled for AVMA Accreditation in 2013. It may smooth the accreditation process if the library merger takes place after the visit. In informal conversations with several CVM staff, including the Library Committee members and the Dean, this is the most significant concern. Clinical Staff Needs The Veterinary Teaching Hospital operates two clinics on a 24‐hour basis. The collection is frequently used by the clinic staff and the 4th year students in clinical practice. Electronic resources and the clinician’s personal collections meet many of their information needs, however, emergency situations do arise where immediate access to the print resources of the Veterinary Medicine Library is essential. Having the Library’s print resources close at hand ensures timely access in critical situations. Course Reserve Collection The most highly used service in the Vet Med Library is the Course Reserve Collection. These materials, selected by instructors each semester, consist of books and other materials with required reading for each course. In order to ensure the availability of these materials for all students in the classes, a two‐hour loan period is enforced, with fines assessed to materials returned late. Until these materials are available electronically, or the instructors revise their course reading requirements, the collection must remain available and accessible to the students. Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Study Space The Vet Med Library provides significant study space for students in the College. A mix of private study carrels, study tables, and a group study room provide seating for over 130 students. Public access computers, a number of CVM‐networked computers and wireless network access are provided here. It is not likely the students will find another location in the College for studying and class preparation. Collections It is estimated that nearly 1,000 linear feet of shelving space would need to be made available in Funk ACES to accommodate the Vet Med Library’s “working” collection of monographs. Another 1,000 linear feet would be needed for the veterinary journals not yet available electronically. This figure (~2,000 lf) represents less than 40% of the existing Vet Med Library collection. While combining the collection of the Veterinary Medicine Library with the Funk ACES Library would build a stronger resource, there are areas where the collections don’t mix well. Currently there is very little medical component in the Funk collection, so the general medical texts that make up nearly 50% of the Vet Med collection would be out of scope for the agriculture collection. Ideally, the medical collection would be more appropriate in the Health Sciences Library Location The Veterinary Medicine Library is located in the College of Veterinary Medicine building and adjacent to the Veterinary Teaching Hospital on the south end of campus. The primary users of the Vet Med Library are mostly located within 100 yards of the facility, while the Funk‐ACES Library is approximately one mile north of the veterinary campus. There is no direct bus service and parking at ACES‐Funk is severely limited. Alternatives While the permanent closure is the desired outcome in terms of cost, there are alternatives to closing that would provide some cost savings, but not to the extent of eliminating the library. Briefly, they are: Operate the existing Vet Med Library with fewer staff Maintain existing space but reduce the size of the collection and staff by becoming a branch of the Funk‐ACES Library Eliminate the Veterinary Medicine Library, but leave a largely unstaffed “reading room” of select materials for use by the Veterinary Teaching Hospital. The College of Veterinary Medicine has developed a facilities plan to restructure the entire Vet Med campus area. Among the plans are a relocated “library/café” If, and Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 when this project gets underway would be the ideal time to implement any significant changes to the Vet Med Library, including closure. Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Attachment 4: Envisioning what the Funk Library could be Vision: An efficiently operated facility that houses the most vital paper collections, provides users with access to library professionals during scheduled hours, maintains hours/services in accordance with expectations from Library administration for their “busiest facilities”, provides premium (not just adequate) public space/equipment for library users during operating hours, and is able to provide outreach for services that are not offered within the physical facility. An appropriate mixture of staff/faculty will work together to reach common goals. It is expected that faculty librarians will be a combination of “hub librarians” and embedded librarians, and that these professionals will become a team working toward common goals. We will be able to both cope with day to day needs that currently exist, and will have the resources and support to go beyond routine needs and pursue larger projects that cannot be accomplished by individuals. We will be on the cutting edge of innovation in library services nationally, and will accept as our mission the goal of experimenting with technologies and methods that are unproven in traditional library settings. We will maintain and enhance our current centers of excellence, while divesting from programs that are not in our best interest to continue. Efficiently operated facility: We will aim to staff our facility as efficiently as possible. We will examine any existing Library standards or best practices that might define how a library facility is operated at the most cost‐
effective level at UIUC. If no standard exists, we will develop a standard that is on the cutting edge of library operation for this campus and follow it. We will gather data that can be used to allocate sufficient staff resources for the desired hours of operation. We expect to see fluctuations in the need for staff based on predictable times, and will design our schedule accordingly. We will target certain blocks of time that are most favorable to having professional staff available, and have scheduled librarian/professional hours during those targeted periods. We will invite any campus group interested in energy efficiency to examine our facility and make recommendations on how we can operate more efficiently – such recommendations can then be vetted by Library Facilities for implementation. Library staff will incorporate energy conservation measures into their daily lives while on the job. We will be enthusiastic about serving as a pilot facility to test energy saving measures. Vital Paper Collections: Electronic information is now the norm, though there are still parts of our historical paper collections that remain vital and that exist in no other format. We will examine our existing collections to determine if stable electronic versions exist. If there is a stable electronic version available of something that we also have in paper format, we will not house that paper version in our library – though a paper copy may well be housed elsewhere on campus. If it is possible to convert what we consider a vital paper document into an electronic version, we will pursue that conversion so that we may then locate that item elsewhere. We will maintain our vital Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 paper collection in a manner that allows for browsing, circulation service and very long hours of access. Access to library professionals: There will be a mix of home librarians (perhaps 2 or 3) and embedded librarians (perhaps 3 or 4) associated with the Funk Library. We will maintain scheduled hours where professional librarians are available for consultation on a walk‐in basis. We will determine the most effective times to schedule these hours through analysis of facility use data and best practices established elsewhere in the Library. We expect these hours will be staffed by professional librarians that may well not typically be located in the Funk Library, and this pattern would work well with the embedded librarian model. Embedded librarians would spend much of their time outside the actual facility working with/for their constituents, but would be part of a services team that made certain that sufficient professional help was available at the most effective times in the Funk Library. There will be space and equipment available for library professionals while on scheduled duty, so that library patrons who come into the library for personal assistance can expect to receive the highest level of professional service. This might require specialized workstations for certain disciplines, and private office space for consultations with librarians will be available for the embedded librarians while scheduled in‐
house. The private office space used by embedded librarians will not be permanently assigned to any individual, but will be reserved for the use of embedded librarians when they are on scheduled shifts. Hours and services will reflect “busiest library” standards: Our goal for the Funk Library is for it to be considered the busiest library on campus. Though we obviously cannot accommodate the same numbers that larger facilities can, we can strive to create a library that is at its peak capacity as often as possible. We will undoubtedly suffer in cost effectiveness due to lower patron capacity, which will require us to expend nearly as much money for hourly operation as a larger facility that can accommodate many more people. We could shift to a 24 hour operation model, but we would first need to determine what is needed for that service increase and then gather the resources to offer the expanded hours. Careful monitoring of facility usage during extended hours would be needed to assure that this is an efficient use of our resources. Displaced civil service staff from consolidating units could be added to the Funk Library to provide these extra hours. There is also historical precedence for using Library/IT fee money to extend library hours. A suggested minimum staffing would be at least one civil service staff member and one student worker for the potential “graveyard” shift, though 2 civil service staff members would be better. There are considerable security risks associated with operating a facility during extended hours without adequate staff on hand to assure patron safety. It is presently unknown whether a standard for extended hours staffing exists within the Library, but should one exist we would certainly comply with that standard. Premium space and Equipment: Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 The Funk Library now offers premium space and equipment compared to most libraries on campus, but there is certainly room for improvement as long‐term inadequacies and deterioration from use now exist. It is expected that the Library Administration would focus its resources to make certain that we continue to have an excellent portfolio of public access computers available. We certainly have plenty of electrical and network capacity for expanding our public computers. The ACES Academic Computing Facility located in the lower level of the Funk Library’s building serves as an added bonus, as there are extra computers available that the Library need not maintain or provide services for. We currently are plagued by inadequate signage in the library, and this has been on the Library Administration’s “to do” list since the building opened. A program should be established by the Library to maintain the facility and its furnishings in an ongoing fashion, perhaps through development efforts. It is expected that little or no structural change in the physical facility need take place to fulfill our vision. We will maintain our group study rooms as a public service, and will not diminish public space currently in the facility for administrative purposes. Building a team of professionals: It is expected that the professional librarians, both embedded and hub, will become a vigorous team who can focus on common goals that serve both the Library and campus. All of these librarians will have a definite administrative responsibility for the hub, while maintaining strong outreach responsibilities for our constituents. As our constituents are extremely interdisciplinary in their research and instructional needs, the team approach to providing services is expected to be an added bonus to our existing configuration. We will discuss the discrete administrative goals of various players in our portfolio of professional librarians below. The Library Administration, in consultation with the Executive Committee, has recently developed new policies and procedures for those that are appointed as Unit Head. The current description of duties for unit heads is based primarily on old fashioned administrative rubric, rather than forward looking functional needs of an interdisciplinary library unit – but as that is the current state of our documentation we can begin there and continue through what we envision as coordinators for functional goals. Unit Head: While recognizing the unique characteristics and special mission of each unit within the Library, it is clear that all units essentially are service providers. In view of this, unit heads are charged with providing creative leadership for their units and with collegial collaboration with other units in the Library. This entails providing services to the unit's constituents as well as engaging the world beyond the walls of the University in areas that directly affect the unit's particular mission. The unit head is ultimately responsible and accountable for the performance of the unit. This entails running the unit on a day‐to‐day basis, assuring provision, evaluation and monitoring of quality services, and mentoring and training the staff. Depending on the size of the staff, some of the duties listed in the Appendix may either be delegated to other faculty and staff within the unit or handled directly by the head. In units that Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 contain other Library faculty, the division of subsidiary responsibility will be determined in a collegial manner, with the unit head having the final authority for job assignments. Without such authority the unit head could not be held responsible and accountable for the performance of staff within the unit. (quoted from: http://www.library.uiuc.edu/committee/exec/supplement/2008‐
2009/Unit_Head_Guidelines.html) Instruction Coordinator: Not responsible for doing all the instruction responsible for aggressively marketing instruction in information management techniques to instructors in agricultural and life sciences o establish and maintain a basic orientation program for incoming undergraduate students o establish and maintain an advanced orientation program for incoming graduate students who will need to prepare for a dissertation driven literature review o establish and maintain individual instructional sessions to targeted courses within the existing curriculum that have needs beyond the basic orientations already in place o establish and maintain instructional opportunities for non‐traditional groups in need of instruction  extension personnel  clinical personnel  university staff members  research groups/labs  library staff training responsible for bringing appropriate subject specialists into the instruction sessions once they have been marketed and established active in Library instruction initiatives being pursued centrally, with goal of including subject specialists where possible Technology Coordinator: Attends all appropriate technology related staff development opportunities from central resources Conducts in‐house training for staff Identifies potentially useful new technologies and investigates applying them to library operations and services Works as primary liaison to Library Systems to assure that our computing needs are attended to and that we are in compliance with procedures Coordinates web‐related activities for unit Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Collections Coordinator: Serves as primary fund manager o Assures that subject liaisons are on track with collections responsibilities o Represents at Collection Development Committee o Collects data and statistics to aid in collection development o Negotiates on behalf of fund when needed Works closely with subject liaisons who do selection Identifies major needed acquisitions and sources of funding Identifies and tests new systems/platforms for delivering collections Works with Library Development to pursue new sources of funding Agricultural Communications Documentation Center Coordinator: Serves as manager of this endowed center o Supervises staff associated with center o Makes certain that center stays on track in accordance with endowment Makes certain that best practices in information gathering are incorporated into bibliographic indexing resources Seeks more sources of funding to enhance center Develops outreach and marketing of center to enhance presence Public Services Coordinator: May need to be unit head Assures that public service needs are recognized and addressed Assures that all staff are given opportunities to provide public service in hub Investigates methods to provide more effective outreach to constituents with embedded librarians Incorporates hub activities so that we are on the cutting edge of Library public service Big Project Coordinator: Identifies potential big projects that we should entertain undertaking Searches for funding opportunities for desirable big projects Builds team capacity for undertaking such projects prior to pursuing funding or making commitments Works with Grants and Contracts and other official entities on funded projects Will likely serve as principle investigator for sponsored projects, though this may be shared with others Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Digital Repository/Author Services Coordinator: Works with IDEALS to interface with their goals and technologies Creates template and workflow to provide robust infrastructure to facilitate provision of author services that enhance our presence in the digital repository o Service to our faculty authors and other creators of information o Initial focus on populating IDEALS with open access or other permissible publications of UIUC faculty o Service to university community o Service to users throughout the world who want our information Builds stable electronic archive of our university’s creative products that may otherwise become fugitive or lost o Digital data curation o Image curation o Outreach document curation o Traditional journal article curation Works with subject specialists in methods of discovery for potential interesting products to add to repository Electronic Reserves/Illinois Compass Coordinator: Responsible for working with subject specialists and others who perform outreach to teaching faculty o Make certain that all possible uses of electronic reserves and the procedures for using the service are well understood and marketed o Serve as interface between subject specialists and Information Processing and Management (IPM) Responsible for working with whatever electronic syllabus technologies are currently supported o Incorporate this technology as method for pushing Library created content out to students and instructors o Provide resources, both generic and custom made, for individual courses in cooperation with subject specialists Goal is to create an even better reserve system than now exists by using better technology to deliver content digitally wherever possible Move from paper to electronic content is paramount Selling procedures and features to teaching faculty is critical Embedded Librarians: Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Embedded librarians will minimally have office space physically close to their constituents, or may be in other libraries Embedded librarians may have more active roles in “learning commons” that are located outside of hub and close to constituents o These commons may be maintained either by Library or constituent department o Needs of commons must be weighed with needs of hub, and embedded librarians will respond to both sets of needs Embedded librarians will have significant roles in the hub library/professional team, and will likely serve in varying coordinator roles Embedded librarians will have definite collection development responsibilities as selectors, though their activities in this area will be guided by the Collections Coordinator Embedded librarians will have access to communal office space in hub library, and will expect to have this space in privacy when they are scheduled in the hub It is expected that outreach/liaison responsibilities will be allotted fairly for embedded librarians and hub librarians Attachment 2 ‐ Biology Team NSM Report 12/22/2009 Figure 1. Biology reshelving stats, monthly Average (FY97-09) with Standard Error.
Figure 2. Biology reshelving stats, yearly total.
Figure 3. Biology gate count, monthly Average (FY97-09) with Standard Error.
Figure 4. Biology gate count, yearly total.
Figure 5. Biology evening gate count, monthly Average (FY04-09) with Standard Error.
Figure 6. Biology evening gate count, yearly total.
Figure 7. Biology reference stats, yearly total.
Libraries
Geology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Engineering and Physics
ACES
ACES CPLA Reference
Applied Health
Natural History Survey
Biology
Veterinary Medicine
Circulating Collection
70,454
13,848
82,680
231,812
60,006
0
34,900
21,033
139,540
26,456
Non Circulating Collection
3,621
6,265
44,334
94,935
150,005
2,592
5,555
48,661
7,687
32,749
Reserves Collection
100
236
288
390
185
0
2,405
6
747
218
Total Volumes
74,175
20,349
127,302
327,137
210,196
2,592
42,860
69,700
147,974
59,423
Libraries
Geology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Engineering and Physics
ACES
ACES CPLA Reference
Applied Health
Natural History Survey
Biology
Veterinary Medicine
Monograph Collection
28,475
12,526
70,190
158,920
107,329
2082
34,243
29,553
52,770
22,825
Serials Collection
38,424
7,791
56,711
162,383
100,945
498
5,128
39,886
94,526
35,951
Other Formats
7,276
32
401
5,834
1,922
12
3,489
261
678
647
Total Volumes
74,175
20,349
127,302
327,137
210,196
2,592
42,860
69,700
147,974
59,423
Libraries
Geology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Engineering and Physics
ACES
ACES CPLA Reference
Applied Health
Natural History Survey
Biology
Veterinary Medicine
Not Charged
72,660
17,310
120,924
305,277
204,852
2,592
40,197
67,722
144,308
57,310
Checked Out (Charged, Renewed, Overdue Statuses)
851
1,713
5,315
10,405
3,226
0
1,768
982
1,997
919
Missing
482
868
410
7,589
1,213
0
405
201
424
509
Lost
14
90
178
670
62
0
207
51
177
85
Other Statuses
168
368
475
3,196
843
0
283
744
1,068
600
Total Volumes
74,175
20,349
127,302
327,137
210,196
2,592
42,860
69,700
147,974
59,423
Survey of Biology Library and Life Sciences Information Use
Survey of Biology Library and Life Sciences Information Use
This Survey is NOT LIVE. Submitting this survey will NOT store any data.
Test validation:
on
off
2. My primary departmental affiliation is:
3. My affiliation with the University of Illinois is (check all that apply):
Undergraduate student
Graduate student
Postdoctoral researcher
Tenure-track faculty
Staff / Academic Professional
Retiree
Other
4. What building(s) on campus are you most frequently in when you are working?
5. I visit the physical Biology Library in Burrill Hall:
Daily
About once a week
About once a month
Once or twice a semester
Never or almost never
6. I visit the Biology Library's website (http://www.library.illinois.edu/bix/):
Daily
About once a week
About once a month
Once or twice a semester
Never or almost never
7. The most important service(s) that the physical Biology Library provides to me are:
file:///C|/pfilesrw/Downloads/8177561.htm[11/20/2009 2:41:00 PM]
Survey of Biology Library and Life Sciences Information Use
8. The most important service(s) that the virtual Biology Library provides to me are: (chose all that apply)
Electronic journals
Electronic books
Article databases (eg, Biological Abstracts, PubMed, etc)
Online catalog
FAQs
Subject guides
New book list
Interlibrary loan
Other
9. The things I'd miss most if the Biology Library didn't exist as a physical space are:
10. I wish the Biology Library offered additional services, such as:
11. If available, should the Biology Library acquire books (other than textbooks) in electronic format instead of print?
Yes
No
Other
12. Do you have any other comments about e-books?
13. What new or expanded services would be needed if the Biology Library closed?
file:///C|/pfilesrw/Downloads/8177561.htm[11/20/2009 2:41:00 PM]
Survey of Biology Library and Life Sciences Information Use
14. Which other physical and virtual campus libraries do you use? (check all that apply)
Applied Health Sciences
Biotechnology Information Center
Chemistry
Education and Social Sciences
Funk ACES
Grainger Engineering
Geology
Health Information Portal
Health Sciences
INRS (formerly Natural History Survey)
Main Library stacks
Veterinary Medicine
Other
15. Are you interested in services that support data management and/or analysis?
Yes
No
Maybe
16. If you answered Yes or Maybe for question 14, please list the general subject area in which you work (e.g., molecular
biology), and any examples of specific services that would interest you.
17. Are you interested in services that provide training on software and other information resources in your area of research?
Yes
No
Maybe
18. If you answered Yes or Maybe for question 16, please list the general subject area in which you work (e.g., ecology), and any
examples of specific services that would interest you.
19. Would you use librarian office hours for help with term papers, research projects, and other needs?
file:///C|/pfilesrw/Downloads/8177561.htm[11/20/2009 2:41:00 PM]
Survey of Biology Library and Life Sciences Information Use
Yes
No
Maybe
20. Thank you for sharing your experiences and opinions! If you have other thoughts about the future of science library services - no matter how wild and crazy -- please tell them to us:
page 2 of 2
5%
Survey provided by Web Services in Public Affairs | contacts | logout
file:///C|/pfilesrw/Downloads/8177561.htm[11/20/2009 2:41:00 PM]
Biology Library Survey Q #2 – Departmental Affiliation
25
Participants
20
15
10
5
0
Affiliation
Biology Library Survey Q #3: User Status
Retiree
3%
Q3:Other
3%
Undergrad 13%
Staff / AP
19%
Grad Student
32%
Faculty
24%
Postdoc
6%
Biology Library Survey Q #4 – Primary Work Building
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Biology Library Survey Q #5: I visit the physical Biology Library in Burrill Hall:
Daily
3%
About once a week
14%
Never or almost never
26%
About once a month
22%
Once or twice a semester
35%
Biology Library Survey Q #6: I visit the Biology Library's website
Daily
13%
About once a week
16%
Never or almost never
43%
About once a month
15%
Once or twice a semester
13%
Biology Library Survey Q #7:
The most important service(s) the physical library
provides to me are: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Print resources ‐ 122 Space ‐ 26 Don't visit ‐ 12 Reference/librarians ‐ 11 Browsing ‐ 8 computers/printing ‐ 4 Copiers ‐ 1 summarized from open‐ended text
Biology Library Survey Q #8: The most important service(s) that the virtual Biology Library provides to me are:
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Electronic journals
Article databases Interlibrary loan Online catalog Electronic books
(eg, Biological Abstracts, PubMed, etc)
Q8:Other
New book list
Subject guides
FAQs
Biology Library Survey Q #9:
The things I'd miss most if the Biology Library didn't exist as a physical space are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Print resources ‐ 65 Convenience/ quick access ‐ 44 Space ‐ 23 Nothing ‐ 18 Browsing ‐ 11 Reference/librarians ‐ 8 Computers/printing ‐ 2 Copiers ‐ 1 Pride in the department ‐ 1 summarized from open‐ended text
Biology Library Survey Q #10:
I wish the Biology Library offered additional services, such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nothing ‐ 19 More electronic resources ‐ 6 Book delivery/document delivery ‐ 4 More books ‐ 4 Scanner ‐ 3 WIFI ‐ 2 More computers ‐ 2 More hours ‐ 2 Café/food ‐ 2 More individual study space ‐ 1 Tutoring ‐ 1 Database training ‐ 1 Renovation ‐ 1 Webseminars subscriptions 1 summarized from open‐ended text
Biology Library Survey Q #11: If available, should the Biology Library acquire books (other than textbooks) in electronic format instead of print?
Q11:Other
11%
No
18%
Yes
71%
Biology Library Survey Q #12:
Do you have any other comments about e‐books?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Read better with print/ prefer print 13 like convenience/efficiency 12 nothing/don't use 9 would want to have both 4 sometimes physical copy still necessary 4 want online access/ easy accessibility 4 e‐textbooks would be useful 4 electronic good if cheaper 3 especially good for reference 3 better than not having access 2 not easy to use 2
summarized from open‐ended text
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
no format preference 1
journals are primary source of info 1 want consistent, user‐friendly, searchable, downloadable format 1 print offers different experience 1 not all content available in e‐format 1 want to be a able to browse by subject 1 focus on high use titles 1 should not replace books for learning 1 use google for ebooks 1 want to be able to annotate 1 would like more ebooks 1 would like to check out e‐readers 1 useable with iphones 1
prefer print, but e‐books ok 1 Biology Library Survey Q #13:
What new or expanded services would be needed if the Biology Library closed?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Study area ‐ 11 Access to materials ‐ 10 Book delivery and return/convenient pick‐up location ‐ 9 Nothing ‐ 9 Print‐only materials close to users ‐ 7 More online/electronic access ‐ 5 Closer reserve than ACES ‐ 4 Accessible personnel ‐ 3 Local access to computers/printer ‐ 3 Keep materials browsable ‐ 2 Be able to order pdfs for material in remote storage – 2
Keep materials together ‐ 2 Keep at least one of the nearby libraries ‐ 1 Section in Granger ‐ 1 Copiers ‐ 1 summarized from open‐ended text
Biology Library Survey Q #14: Which other physical and virtual campus libraries do you use?
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Biology Library Survey Q #15:
Are you interested in services that support data management and/or analysis?
Yes
27%
Maybe
29%
No
44%
Biology Library Survey Q #17:
Are you interested in services that provide training on software and other information resources in your area of research? Maybe
22%
Yes
38%
No
40%
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Biology Library Survey Q #16/18 (Summary) Subject areas responding
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Biology Library Survey Q #16/18 (Summary):
Specific Help Needed
Biology Library Survey Q #19:
Would you use librarian office hours for help with term papers, research projects, and other needs?
Yes
19%
Maybe
25%
No
56%
Attachment 6 ‐ Themes from questions on services related to data and computing In order to assess opportunities for unmet needs in areas the Libraries have not yet fully explored, the survey asked respondents to indicate whether they have an interest in “services that support data management and/or analysis”, or “services that provide training on software and other information resources” in their areas of research, and if they answered 'Yes' or 'Maybe' to list specific services of interest. A combined 193 Yes/No/Maybe responses were obtained from faculty, postdocs, graduate students, and staff. We received 98 specific responses to the optional open‐ended questions. These responses were analyzed using an open and emergent coding scheme, which resulted in 9 distinct themes across the 2 questions and 3 respondent types, and a total of 117 data points. The most prevalent themes were services related to statistics (30%), to analysis tools (22%), to data resources (22%), and to literature searching and management (18%). Faculty and postdocs mentioned analysis tools most frequently (29%), followed by data resources (22%), while graduate students and staff mentioned statistics‐related issues most frequently (39% and 44%, respectively). While the Libraries currently provide services related to literature searching and management, some data‐related resources, and some GIS resources, many of the most prevalent themes relate to services the Library does not currently offer, and may not be equipped to offer (in terms of staff expertise, infrastructure, funding, or core mission) without substantial new investments and/or new collaborative relationships with other campus units, as described in the Recommendations section. Theme
analysis tools
bioinformatics
data resources
GIS
interpretation
literature searching / management
manuscript prep
statistics
teaching resources
Totals
Theme
analysis tools
bioinformatics
data resources
GIS
interpretation
literature searching / management
manuscript prep
statistics
teaching resources
Totals
Faculty/Postdocs
16
2
12
2
1
11
0
10
1
Graduate students
8
0
11
2
0
6
1
18
0
Staff
2
0
3
0
0
4
0
7
0
Totals
55
46
16
26
2
26
4
1
21
1
35
1
117
Faculty/Postdocs
29.09
3.64
21.82
3.64
1.82
20.00
0.00
18.18
1.82
Graduate students
17.39
0.00
23.91
4.35
0.00
13.04
2.17
39.13
0.00
Staff
Totals
100
100
12.50
0.00
18.75
0.00
0.00
25.00
0.00
43.75
0.00
100
22.22
1.71
22.22
3.42
0.85
17.95
0.85
29.91
0.85
100