P a g e |
1
LIS Library Service Survey – Fall 2008
Report of Results
Background
Following up on a recommendation in the University Library report on new service models
(“Library Services for the 21st Century at the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign: Final
Report and Recommendations of the Budget Group Plus,” April 21, 2008), a team was
appointed in August 2008 to “develop a service profile (or profiles) attuned to the evolving
research and teaching needs” in Library & Information Science and Communication Studies.
The members of the team are: Katie Newman, Biotechnology Librarian (team leader); Lisa
Romero, Head, Communications Library; Sue Searing, Head, LIS Library; Lori Carroll, Library
Specialist, LIS Library/Communications Library; Linda Smith, LIS Library Liaison, GSLIS; Brant
Houston, Chair, Library Committee, College of Media; JoAnn Jacoby, New Service Models
Coordinator.
As part of the fact-gathering process, the team conducted a survey of LIS Library users. The
purpose of this study was to gather quickly information for planning, not to produce scientifically
valid results. This report summarizes the results of the survey, which in turn informs the
planning.
Methods
The survey was created using the UI’s Web Services Toolbox, pre-tested on a few members of
the target populations, and slightly modified based on the testers’ feedback. It was “live” from
September 28 through October 7 (10 days). The survey instrument combined quantitative
demographic questions and self-reports of library usage with open-ended questions to gauge
the value that respondents place on various dimensions of library services. (See Appendix 1 for
the survey instrument.)
Invitations to participate were sent via established email lists to all University Library employees,
all GSLIS faculty and staff, and all GSLIS graduate students – a total of 1, 443 email addresses.
Some duplication occurred, e.g. GSLIS students who work for the library and librarians who
teach at GSLIS. Two reminders were sent to the full population.
Response Rate
The raw response rate was 23% (n=328). 73% of the 328 respondents were affiliated with
GSLIS and 26% with the Library. On-campus faculty were well represented, with response
rates of 74% from GSLIS and 53% from the Library. The response rate for MS and CAS
students was 41%; within that population, the sub-set of LEEP students’ response rate was
32%. (See Appendix 2 for a fuller breakdown of the population with response rates.)
P a g e |
2
Data analysis
The software used to analyze the quantitative data was Excel. The software used to analyze
the textual data was Wordle, a freely available word cloud generator (http://www.wordle.net).
Word clouds were generated for questions 6 through 10 from the raw text. In addition,
responses to question 7 (concerning virtual services) were tagged with subject terms, in order to
better understand the results by “normalizing” the data; a word cloud was then generated from
the tags. The word clouds (which are reproduced in Appendix 3) assisted team members as
they reviewed all the verbatim responses to discern trends and themes.
Frequency of library use
One question addressed the frequency of use of the physical LIS Library, and another question
asked about the frequency of use of the virtual LIS Library. Both questions presented a
frequency scale with eight options ranging from “daily” to “never or almost never.”
Unfortunately, two of the options were worded incorrectly. “More than daily but less than
weekly” should have read “less than daily but more than weekly ,“ and similarly, “more than
weekly but less than monthly” should have been “less than weekly but more than monthly.” A
handful of respondents called these errors to the survey designer’s attention, but overall trends
in the data suggest that most respondents understood the intent of the frequency scale.
All user groups except Library staff reported using the virtual library more often than the physical
library. The most commonly reported frequency of using the virtual LIS Library was “weekly.”
By contrast, the most commonly reported frequency of using the physical LIS Library was “once
or twice a semester.” The number of people who “never or almost never” use the virtual library
is half that of those who never use the physical library. Across all user groups, 70% use the
virtual library at least monthly, while only 45% use the physical library at least monthly.
PhD students are very heavy users of the both the physical and virtual libraries. 64% reported
using the virtual LIS Library on a daily basis. MA and CAS students also make heavy use of the
virtual library.
The biggest gaps between physical and virtual use were reported by LEEP MS students and
faculty. Library faculty and staff are notable for reporting almost equal use of the physical and
virtual libraries; however, the Library faculty and staff’s use overall is low compared to GSLIS
faculty and students.
P a g e |
3
P a g e |
4
Virtual services
Virtual library use clearly exceeds physical library use, but what do people actually value about
virtual library services? Question 7 prompted users to complete this sentence: “The most
important service(s) that the virtual LIS Library provides to me are…”
~ Databases
Access to “LIS databases” was most frequently listed as the most important service that the LIS
Library provides virtually. The specific databases for LIS – Library Lit, LISA, and LISTA – were
all mentioned with roughly the same frequency. References to “e-journals” and “online
resources” may also refer implicitly to these major databases, given the increasing convergence
of full text articles with indexing and abstracting services. Likewise, references to “online
reference tools” might include article databases along with ready-reference tools such as online
encyclopedias. This ambiguity is inevitable in open-ended responses, but it does not obscure
the overwhelming importance of the discipline-specific indexing and full text databases.
~ Convenient access
The word “access” was used over and over again, and other terms that connote convenience
likewise occurred quite frequently (“quick,” “easy,” “direct,” “efficient,” “convenient,” “handy”).
There were a fair number of explicit references to the “gateway” function of the LIS Library
website. Respondents also stressed the value of pre-selected, discipline-specific links and
tools, e.g. the “focus on the needs of LIS students/faculty, specifically the collocation of
resources of interest to that community.”
~ Unique digital content
Of the digital content created or assembled by the LIS Library faculty and staff on the library
website, the Virtual New Books Shelf was most highly valued. Respondents also emphasized
the importance of pathfinders (variously described as “LibGuides for my classes,” “the resources
page for course projects,” “Sue’s tips,” etc.) and the librarian-selected, topically-arranged web
links.
~ Less important services / unclear data
About ten percent of the respondents left the question about virtual services blank (n=35), and
several more explained that they do not use the virtual LIS Library. These were all coded
“none.” Some respondents may have interpreted “virtual LIS Library” narrowly to refer to the
library’s web site, rather than the full range of e-resources and online services supported by the
library.
Electronic reserves were mentioned less often than expected. It may be that GSLIS students
are accustomed to connecting to e-Reserves through Moodle or through the online catalog,
rather than starting at the LIS Library site.
While many respondents specifically value electronic journals, some simply wrote “journals,”
and only a few explicitly mentioned the comprehensive list of print and online LIS journals which
the LIS Library maintains. The journal list is a labor-intensive project and will be difficult to
P a g e |
5
maintain in the absence of a unified physical library; unfortunately the survey data is somewhat
unclear as to its value.
In addition to the themes already mentioned, a few respondents mentioned the importance of
reference assistance and guidance and contact with LIS Library employees. It is not clear if
these are general comments or refer specifically to virtual interactions, although a few
respondents did mention getting advice via email or from search tips on the website.
~ Differences among user sub-groups regarding virtual services
~ ~ Faculty
Library faculty and GSLIS faculty both placed the highest value on the Virtual New Books Shelf.
Databases and ejournals were next in importance. Consistent with past campus-wide Library
surveys, the most important “services” of the library, in the eyes of faculty, revolve around its
print and digital collections.
Among GSLIS faculty, having a library web site dedicated to the discipline of LIS (“resource
gateway,” “portal to online resources”) was considered fairly important; Library faculty seldom
mentioned this. Conversely, responses from Library faculty emphasized the “quick” and “easy”
convenience of the LIS Library website, while GSLIS faculty seldom mentioned this factor.
GSLIS faculty mentioned interacting with knowledgeable staff and obtaining reference help and
assistance as an important component of the virtual library experience. Library faculty did not
stress this dimension. Neither group of faculty accorded much importance to pathfinders.
A few GSLIS faculty mentioned services that are not specific to the LIS Library (the online
catalog, the ORR, Scopus). This might mean that they do not differentiate departmental library
resources from Library Gateway resources in the virtual realm. Library faculty did not blur the
boundaries in this way.
Only three respondents identified themselves exclusively as LEEP faculty, too few to analyze
separately.
~ ~ Students
Overall, GSLIS students who are pursuing MS or CAS degrees value access to the LIS
databases far more than any other service. Next in importance, according to the students, are
electronic journals, easy access to pre-selected LIS-focused information, and librarian-created
content that helps them find information on a topic or for class assignments.
Compared to on-campus students, LEEP students place somewhat greater emphasis on access
to ejournals and on the organization of resources for easier and quicker information-seeking.
LEEP students also mentioned e-Reserves more often than on-campus students did.
PhD students raised the same themes as MS/CAS students and faculty.
P a g e |
6
~ ~ Staff and academic professionals
Only eight respondents identified themselves as GSLIS staff. Their responses did not differ
much from the overall population.
Thirty respondents identified themselves as Library staff and three as Library academic
professionals. Again, their responses regarding virtual services did not differ much from the
overall population, except that 12 of the Library staff (40 %) left this question blank.
Physical services
What risks being lost when a distinct physical space for the LIS Library is eliminated? What
alternatives to a dedicated departmental library could continue to supply the things that LIS
users value about the current service model?
Although the physical library is used less frequently than the virtual library, many respondents
expressed a strong appreciation of physical collections and services. Two questions elicited
data about physical library services: Question 6, “The most important service(s) that the
physical LIS Library provides to me are…” and Question 8, “The thing I’d miss most if the LIS
Library didn’t exist as a physical space is…” Analysis of these questions revealed the same
themes, so the results are integrated in this report. Four themes emerged as most salient: 1)
collections and their use; 2) other uses for the physical space; 3) importance of knowledgeable,
friendly, and helpful staff; 4) symbolic and affective significance of physical space.
It should be borne in mind that more than half of the respondents identified themselves as
relatively infrequent users of the physical space. However, in the case of LEEP students who
visit campus once a semester, they may engage in quite intense use of the space during their
time on campus.
~ Collections and their use
Respondents identified a number of components of the physical collection of value to them:
current issues of periodicals; runs of bound journals (not all of which are online); new books;
books and conference proceedings in their areas of study and research (e.g., youth services,
history of books and libraries); reserve materials; reference materials; cataloging tools (not all of
which are online); thesaurus collection; library fiction collection; posters.
“The one-stop-shopping experience”: Repeated emphasis was placed on the value of having
relevant materials in all these categories co-located and readily accessible in an easy-tonavigate space. It was also noted that even when materials are available online, it may be more
convenient to access and read print versions. Efficiency of access and the resultant time
savings are important. A high value is placed on the efficiency of having materials housed in
one place supporting a variety of activities – picking up materials, looking at course reserves,
having needed materials while studying. Concern is expressed that more time will be needed to
find and access relevant resources if the collection is dispersed. Some respondents do not find
the main stacks hospitable.
Having materials co-located helps both the student (“it’s helpful when working on several
classes in a given day to be able to do almost all of my work in the LIS Library”) and researcher
P a g e |
7
(“the ability to have my research and reading shaped by the dynamic interaction with books on
shelves combined with the serendipity of locating materials and articles that are other than the
initial reason for my visit”). A high value is still placed on browsing physical collections, whether
current periodicals, new books, or the stacks containing older materials. Browsing stimulates
research ideas: being able to explore the physical collection adds a dimension that is
impossible to replicate virtually. Catalog searching does not provide details available when
thumbing through contents, index, etc. Selection of materials for transfer to Oak Street should
take the continuing value placed on browsing into account.
~ Other uses for the physical space
“The refuge experience”: The LIS Library is viewed as a quiet and comfortable place to study
that is uniquely “for” LIS students. “The community is conducive to good work,” and groups like
the shared space to work on collaborative projects. Users like the “comfy” chairs and nice work
tables. The small scale facilitates communication and collaboration with fellow graduate
students, including sharing reserve materials. This would be more difficult to accomplish in a
large, non-dedicated space like the Undergraduate Library. For Library faculty, the space can
also be a place to “hide” and get research done.
The space supports efficient and effective work, with wireless connections, available
workstations for searching the catalog and databases, and multiple photocopiers. It’s also a
location to pick up books checked out from other locations. The space functions as a teaching
space for library-intensive activities during LEEP on-campus.
Displays on bulletin boards adjacent to the LIS Library are also appreciated. Posting of articles
and chapters by and about Library and GSLIS faculty provides a way to casually keep up with
colleagues, current LIS news, and recent acquisitions.
~ Importance of knowledgeable, friendly, and helpful staff
Respondents highly value the knowledgeable, friendly and helpful LIS Library human resources,
frequently mentioning Sue Searing, Sandy Wolf, and Lori Carroll by name as well as noting the
helpfulness of graduate assistants and student workers who also assist patrons. The service
ethos of the staff creates an atmosphere supportive of study and research. In-person
communication remains highly valued, as in the “over-the-shoulder” learning that can occur as
one undertakes a catalog or database search with staff assistance.
Staff expertise co-located with physical collections can be very helpful: “knowing when I walk in
that the person at the desk knows my specific needs and assignments.” Information and
assistance are geared specifically toward LIS studies and reference assistance is first-class.
Those staffing the library know the collection and where to find what is needed if it isn’t in the
LIS Library. They ensure a “positive customer service experience.”
LEEP students are particularly anxious about being able to reach someone who can help them
from a distance: “Knowing that there is a location to call actual people to whom I’ve been
introduced and know are friendly and knowledgeable.” In sum, users want to ensure ongoing
“quality customer service from knowledgeable staff familiar with LIS resources, the LIS program,
and the UIUC Library Faculty’s needs.”
P a g e |
8
~ Symbolic and affective significance of physical space
A number of respondents value the physical space for what it can symbolize. They stated that
the LIS Library has "a very special feel" that conveys "a sense of history, pride [and] continuity."
As a space dedicated to LIS, It is perceived as a "home base" for LEEP students and
symbolizes the legitimacy or identity of LIS as a discipline. Students feel that a library science
program should have its own library, a physical emblem of the top-ranked LIS program in the
country.
Many students also had an affective response: “knowing there is a place on campus that I
actually belong,” a sense of community and understanding. “The LIS Library feels like home to
GSLIS students.” Librarians may likewise have an affective response, experiencing in the LIS
Library space a “connection to the world of librarianship outside of my own library. “
Desired services
Users were asked about desirable services not currently offered in Question 9, “I wish the LIS
Library offered additional services, such as…” The most frequent answer to this question was
an expression of complete satisfaction with the current services and/or an inability to think of
anything new.
Almost as frequently, suggestions were made, particularly by users affiliated with GSLIS, for
improving the existing physical facility. The most common recommendations were to add more
electrical outlets and computers, install a scanner, provide more comfortable seating, and serve
coffee or other beverages. Some users expressed a desire for the LIS Library to move to the
LIS Building. The physical LIS Library was envisioned as a place where students, faculty and
professional librarians could gather (“Make it a community center for LIS”.)
In addition to an improved facility, many comments proposed new or enhanced services. The
most frequent suggestion, coming primarily from GSLIS users, was for more instructional
services such as online tutorials and in-person workshops. Other service suggestions included
a newsletter or RSS feed to inform users about new resources, brown bag sessions on topics
such as resume writing, chat/IM reference service, and longer hours. Some respondents
recommended more “integrated” services with tighter links to other Library, GSLIS and campus
resources.
Some responses addressed collections rather than services per se. For example, several
respondents wished for multiple copies of high-demand books. Some users asked for stronger
representation of specific subjects (i.e. music librarianship and the history of books and
printing), grey literature, online journal back files, standards in digital format, and print journals.
Other comments
The survey’s final question invited respondents to share “other thoughts about the future of LIS
Library services—no matter how wild and crazy.” Few genuinely innovative ideas were
expressed. The leading theme was a plea to maintain the LIS Library as a separate, physical
departmental library, either in its present location or in the LIS Building.
P a g e |
9
The answers to this question for the most part echoed answers to the preceding questions.
Responses from GSLIS users emphasized the importance of user-friendly space for LIS
research and made recommendations for improving the existing space. In contrast, responses
from the Library faculty and staff focused more on services and less on place. Both groups
suggested a diverse set of new and enhanced services. These included ebooks for portable
devices, web 2.0 technologies for outreach, online tutorials, brown bags/seminars, and digital
reference tools. But each of these ideas was mentioned by only one or two respondents.
Several respondents, particularly within the Library, expressed the view that a virtual LIS Library
would be acceptable as long as there continued to be a dedicated LIS Librarian. Library
respondents again stressed the importance of maintaining and strengthening the collections,
both print and digital.
Conclusion
The survey data suggest that most users increasingly rely on virtual access as their primary
mode of interaction, a trend that is reflected in the low rates of visitation to the LIS Library in
recent years. At the same time, many of the responses to the open-ended questions provide a
rationale for maintaining and bolstering the status quo (a full-service departmental library), an
unlikely outcome in light of the challenges of continuing to support this model. The value of the
traditional departmental library diminishes when it becomes an impediment to access (e.g.,
when collections are locked behind closed doors at the times when students most need them)
or when keeping the doors open diverts resources from the development of innovative services
and the active integration of subject specialist knowledge into the LIS community through
outreach and teaching. While many respondents argued against any changes, an almost equal
number expressed excitement about the possibility of re-envisioning library services to the LIS
community. Detangling these competing views is a challenge, but the survey results enrich our
understanding of library users’ needs and desires, which we should address and strive to satisfy
in any new service model, and will continue to guide our decisions about what services are core
to the mission of supporting research, teaching and practice in LIS and related fields.
The COMM-LISS team is very grateful for the thoughtful participation in the survey by the
GSLIS and Library communities. If you have additional feedback or ideas, please contact the
team leader, Katie Newman (florador@illinois.edu) or the LIS Librarian, Sue Searing
(searing@illinois.edu).
P a g e |
10
APPENDIX 1 – LIS Services Survey instrument
LIS Library services
1. My primary affiliation is:
GSLIS
University Library
Other
Other
2. My UI status is (check all that apply):
Undergraduate student
Masters student
CAS student
PhD student
Untenured faculty
Tenured faculty
GA/TA/RA
Staff
Other
Other
3. I am:
Student enrolled in the LEEP program
Adjunct faculty in the LEEP program
Neither
4. I visit the LIS Library on the third floor of Main Library:
Daily
More than daily but less than weekly
Weekly
More than weekly but less than monthly
Monthly
Once or twice a semester
Once or twice a year
P a g e |
11
Never or almost never
5. I visit the LIS Library virtually at its website:
Daily
More than daily but less than weekly
Weekly
More than weekly but less than monthly
Monthly
Once or twice a semester
Once or twice a year
Never or almost never
6. The most important service(s) that the physical LIS Library provides to me are:
7. The most important service(s) that the virtual LIS Library provides to me are:
8. The thing I'd miss most if the LIS Library didn't exist as a physical space is:
9. I wish the LIS Library offered additional services, such as:
10. Thank you for sharing your experiences and opinions! If you have other thoughts
about the future of LIS Library services--no matter how wild and crazy--please tell them
to us:
P a g e |
12
Appendix 2: Population breakdown and response rates
Campus
Profile
for
GSLIS,
and
the
University
Faculty,
2007‐2008.
Also
shown
(next
page)
are
number
who
responded
to
the
LIS
Service
Survey.
Staff
on
state
funds
132
(73.24)
23
(23.16)
Tenure‐system
faculty
Advertising
Institute
of
Communications
Research
Journalism
Student
Headcounts
On‐campus
majors
Undergraduates
Graduates
Masters
Doctoral
Extramural
students
Total
students
Total
Instructional
Units
offered
On‐campus,
academic
year
On‐campus,
summer
Extramural
Expanded
Headcounts
Staff
on
All
Funds
Academic
Staff
Headcount
Tenure
System
Faculty
Headcount
Professors
Headcount
Associate
Prof
Headcount
Assistant
Prof
Headcount
Visiting
Faculty
Headcount
PostDocs
Headcount
Other
instructional
staff
Headcount
Academic
Professionals
Headcount
Assistants
Headcount
Civil
Service
Staff
Headcount
University
Library
Headcount
(FTE)
475
(356.75)
88
(92.28)
GSLIS
Headcount
(FTE)
251
0
251
209
42
280
531
12874
5708
878
6288
132
75
23
3
12
6
5
0
14
33
47
10
475
148
88
19
43
24
13
0
2
45
132
195
P a g e |
13
Responded
to
LIS
Survey
(Some
categories
are
not
reported
in
the
Campus
Profile
or
were
not
clearly
defined
in
the
survey)
Library
Library
Faculty
Library
Staff
All
GSLIS
All
GSLIS
Faculty
On
Campus
GSLIS
faculty
LEEP
GSLIS
Faculty
GSLIS
Staff
All
MS
&
CAS
students
LEEP
Students
PhD
Students
LIS
(250)
24
17
7
12
200
90
14
%
responded
(based
on
headcounts)
Library
82
47
35
17%
53%
74%
32%
33%
P a g e | 14
Appendix 3: Wordle-generated word clouds
Word clouds were generated from the responses to the open-ended questions from the survey using wordle (wordle.com). This allowed us to see
the relative frequency that certain concepts / words in the responses.
all responses to all questions
all Library responses
all GSLIS responses
6.The most important service(s) that the 7.The most important service(s) that the
physical LIS Library provides to me are: virtual LIS Library provides to me are:
“virtual new book shelf”
LEEP students
on-campus students
6.The most important service(s) that the 7.The most important service(s) that the
physical LIS Library provides to me are: virtual LIS Library provides to me are:
LEEP students
campus faculty
library faculty
7. The most important service(s) that the virtual LIS Library provides to me are:
9. I wish the LIS Library offered additional services, such as:
common phrases: comfortable seating; more popular books; longer hours; connection to GSLIS print quota; virtual chat and IM reference; grey literature; faceted searching across LIS databases; online tutorials;
more workshops, discussions, events