University of Iowa Faculty Survey: Report of Findings

The University of Iowa implementation of the Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey was launched on April 1, 2015, and was closed to new responses on April 30, 2015, with a total of 875 complete responses. The questionnaire covers topics in several key areas, including: the role of scholarly journal and monograph formats; faculty members’ digital research activities and methodologies; faculty members’ usage of scholarly communication services; faculty members’ data preservation and management behaviors and needs; the role of the library in supporting faculty members’ needs; faculty members’ undergraduate instruction practices; and teaching and research within a clinical or health sciences context. The report provides a high-level overview of findings from the University of Iowa faculty survey

University of Windsor Faculty Survey: Report of Findings

The University of Windsor Faculty Survey: Report of Findings presents a non-analytic view of survey responses to the Ithaka S+R Local Faculty Survey administered in Fall 2014 as part of a larger CARL (Canadian Association of Research Libraries) initiative

University of Windsor Faculty Survey: Analytical Memo

The University of Windsor Faculty Survey: Analytical Memo is a companion report to the 2014 University of Windsor Faculty Survey: Report of Findings. It presents an analytical review of the survey responses from Ithaka S+R, a not-for-profit service which assists academic libraries to understand and navigate the economic and technological changes impacting universities and their libraries in the 21st century

United Kingdom Survey of Academics, 2012

<p>Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.</p>The <I> United Kingdom Survey of Academics, 2012</I>, conducted by Ithaka S+R, Jisc, and Research Libraries UK (RLUK), examines the attitudes and behaviours of academics at higher education institutions across the United Kingdom. Thematically, the Survey of Academics covers resource discovery and current awareness, library collections and content access, the print to electronic format transition, academic research methods and practices, undergraduate instruction, publishing and research dissemination, the role and value of the academic library, and the role of the learned society. The UK Survey of Academics is designed to closely parallel the Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2012.<br> <br> This study is also available at ICPSR along with the datasets for the United States surveys of academics (conducted triennially from years 2000 – 2012). <br> See ICPSR's <a href="http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/34807/version/1" title="Ithaka S+R, Jisc, RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2012">Ithaka S+R, Jisc, RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2012</a> webpage.<br> <br><B>Main Topics</B>:<br>Academics' perceptions of academic publishing, scholarly practices, and libraries; Scholarly communications; Academics' views and use of freely available materials for research and teaching

Duke University Faculty Survey: Report of Findings - Fall 2015

The Duke University implementation of the Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey was launched on September 9, 2015, and was closed to new responses on October 13, 2015, with a total of 260 complete responses. The questionnaire covers topics in several key areas, including: how faculty members discover and access materials for research; faculty members’ usage of scholarly communication services; faculty members’ research practices, including data preservation and management behaviors and needs; faculty members’ perceptions of students’ research skills; the role of the library in supporting faculty members’ needs; the role and value of various types of materials for research and teaching; and faculty members’ impressions and usage of library support services. The following report provides a high-level overview of findings from the Duke University faculty survey

Ithaka S+R US Library Survey 2019

Executive Summary The Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2019 examines strategy and leadership issues from the perspective of academic library deans and directors. This project aims to provide academic librarians and higher education leaders with information about chief librarians’ visions and the opportunities and challenges they face in leading their organizations. In fall 2019, we invited library deans and directors at not-for-profit four-year academic institutions across the United States to complete the survey, and we received 662 responses for a response rate of 46 percent. In this survey cycle, we added new coverage of three key topics: equity, diversity, and inclusion strategies, changes to collections strategies, and the library’s role in ensuring student success outcomes. The key findings below highlight many of the most notable results on these topics as well as longer-standing thematic areas of interest, both from the current cycle and over time. Key Findings • Library directors continue to perceive the value of their roles—and the roles of their libraries—as declining in the eyes of their supervisors and other higher education leaders. Continuing a trend found in the previous cycle, directors at all institution types feel less valued by, involved with, and aligned strategically with their supervisors and other senior academic leadership. Further, as library directors’ perceptions of the value of various functions of the library from the perspective of their supervisors have decreased, the perceived valuation gap between library directors and their supervisors has grown wider. • Student success remains a top objective for library directors and they see the contributions of their library toward this success most strongly in relation to increasing student learning and enhancing student well-being. Contributions toward more traditional metrics of success—such as enrollment and graduation—have not been similarly identified. • Priorities continue to shift from collections to services. Directors anticipate increased expenditures for services and staffing related to teaching and research support. Correspondingly, decreases in collections expenditures are anticipated over the next five years. • A declining share of directors expect to increase financial support for technology, systems, and infrastructure.While in previous survey cycles, doctoral university directors expressed relatively more interest in adding support in this area, this has plateaued to levels more similar to other institution types. • Spending on electronic books now roughly equals that for print books. For the first time, the percentage of library budget spent on e-books has risen to nearly the same level as print books. This reflects the general trend of increased spending on all forms of electronic resources and decreased spending on all types of print resources. • Half of library directors will likely cancel a major journal package in the next five years. Fewer respondents compared to the previous cycle believe that the value of electronic resources is rising faster than cost, possibly contributing to the likelihood of cancellations. A relatively small share plan on pivoting to transformative agreements to bundle publishing and subscription costs. • Roughly half of library directors are interested in contributing to institutional learning analytics tools. However, about half are also concerned about third-party vendors having access to individual-level data. Both interest and concern is highest amongst leaders at doctoral universities. • Relatively few library directors agree that their library, as well as their broader institution, have well-developed strategies related to equity, diversity, inclusion, and access. While only one in three feel confident in these strategies, many are implementing relevant practices for recruiting and selecting candidates, including having separate minimum requirements and preferred qualifications in job descriptions

Sustaining the Digital Humanities : Host Institution Support Beyond the Start-up Period

As more and more scholars experiment with digital methods and with building digital collections, what measures are in place to make sure that the fruits of these labors are kept vital for the long term? Library directors and chief information officers sense that there is interest on the part of faculty, but does this mean they need to invest in a digital humanities center and hire new staff or just reconfigure the people and resources they already have? First and foremost, what does university leadership seek to gain from such an investment? This study seeks to address the fate of digital research resources - whether they be digital collections of scholarly or other materials, portals, encyclopedias, mapping tools, crowdsourced transcription projects, visualization tools, or other original and innovative projects that may be created by professors, library, or IT staff. Such projects have the potential to provide valuable tools and information to an international audience of learners. Without careful planning and execution, however, they can also all too easily slip between the cracks and quickly become obsolete

University of New Hampshire Library Undergraduate Student Survey

Survey of UNH undergraduate students conducted fall of 2021

University of New Hampshire Library Faculty Survey

Survey of UNH faculty conducted fall of 2021

Office of Scholarly Communication Scope, Organizational Placement, and Planning in Ten Research Libraries: Report

The phrase “scholarly communication” appears often in the description of library roles and responsibilities, but the function is still new enough that it takes different forms in different institutions. There is no common understanding of where it fits into the library’s organizational structure. This landscape review of offices of scholarly communication grows out of research originally conducted by Ithaka S+R for the Harvard Library. The project was designed to undertake a review of how academic institutions support the scholarly communication function in their libraries and to gather basic information about the issues at some of the largest research intensive university libraries. It finds categorical differences in the vision for the scholarly communications unit and its organizational placement, as well as associated differences in staffing and budget