Statistics CKG Call
Oct. 6, 2014
1pm
Participants:
Debbie Ojakangas (UCD), Chan Li (CDL), Danielle Waters-Westbrook (CDL), Leslie McMichael (UCLA),
Roxanne Peck (UCLA), Cindy Firenzi (UCSC), Debbie Cox (San Diego), Charlotte Rubens (NRLF), Sharon
Scott (UCR), Susan Edwards (UCB), Lynn Jones (UCB)
Meeting Notes
1.
IPEDS Academic Libraries Component
Campuses have regularly filled out bi-annual NCES survey in the past.
IPEDS has an “Academic Libraries Information Center” at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/resource/alscenter.asp
The page includes links to useful information, including instructions and glossary. Reporting “digital and electronic” media will be a challenge for some campuses, since that data may not be readily available.
CDL may be able to provide figures for Tier 1 and 2 electronic databases, but campuses will have to add their own Tier 3 resources.
2.
UC Library Statistics Annual Report
 Accuracy of Reference Statistics
Susan Edwards (UCB) mentioned her concern with the accuracy of reference statistics, both virtual and live. Because reference questions are embedded in much of the work done by librarians, the reported figures may not accurately capture all instances of reference help.
Debbie Ojakangas reported that UC Davis has an online application used to track monthly reference questions that uses manual input by individual librarians.
Irvine apparently has an extensive and well-developed system for tracking reference questions.
UCLA has been revamping its online collection of reference data to include all types of reference assistance: classroom, phone, events, etc. The system helps the administration know what’s going on. UCLA just went through a revamp of how librarians are collecting data.
What is the purpose of tracking outreach? Of outreach liaisons? It would be useful to first determine the purpose or goals of these activities before determining what would be useful measures.
 Electronic reference sources searches
On Schedule F, the data for “electronic reference sources & searches” generally comes exclusively from Scholarly Stats, which includes redundant searches and leads to inflated figures. Chan Li says only ProQuest has that problem, and suggests that those gathering the statistics might look at the platform level rather than the database level.