8 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Still Bound for Disappointment? Another Look at Faculty and Library Journal Collections
After the publication of "Bound for Disappointment: Faculty and Journals at Research Institutions" by Jim Self in 2008, academic libraries found new insights into one particularly frustrating piece of data. LibQUAL+ survey results have consistently shown that faculty at institutions with ARL libraries report negative perceptions of library service regarding journal collections. One key finding of Self's study was the strong correlation between satisfaction with journal collections and overall satisfaction with library services for faculty. This study is a continuation of Self's work, and applies the same methodology to recent LibQUAL+ data from ARL libraries and the faculty at Columbia University. Three years later, we hope to understand whether this trend of dissatisfaction has continued at ARL libraries, and particularly at Columbia. Why are faculty at Columbia dissatisfied with journal collections? Have other areas of library service become more important to faculty? As academic libraries continue to invest heavily in journals, particularly electronic journals, how can we continue to understand this issue, and meet faculty needs
Recommended from our members
A 2CUL Collaborative Ethnographic Assessment of Humanities Doctoral Students
This paper examines the processes taken to design and administer a collaborative ethnographic study of humanities doctoral students within an inter-institutional, collaborative framework. Project organization and management, including the creation of instruments and analysis of results across two local research teams and institutional cultures is discussed. Effective communications, among and between project teams, and time management were identified as critical factors for success. Benefits resulting from the project included an improved understanding of the needs of a key user group, a heightened interest in user assessment and data-driven decision making among staff within the partner organizations, and a deeper engagement with important academic administrators on both campuses
Recommended from our members
A 2CUL Collaborative Ethnographic Assessment of Humanities Doctoral Students: Design, Implementation and Analysis
This paper examines the processes taken to design and administer a collaborative ethnographic study of humanities doctoral students within an inter-institutional, collaborative framework. Project organization and management, including the creation of instruments and analysis of results across two local research teams and institutional cultures is discussed. Effective communications, among and between project teams, and time management were identified as critical factors for success. Benefits resulting from the project included an improved understanding of the needs of a key user group, a heightened interest in user assessment and data-driven decision-making among staff within the partner organizations, and a deeper engagement with academic administrators on both campuses
Recommended from our members
Supporting Humanities Doctoral Student Success: A Collaborative Project between Cornell University Library and Columbia University Libraries
In recent years there have been a number of major, large-scale studies in the United States on the high attrition rates for doctoral students in the humanities. The results of these studies reveal a significant gap between the humanities and other disciplines. None of the studies consulted has specifically considered the role of the library in supporting doctoral program completion, even though it is often characterized as the humanist‘s equivalent to the scientific laboratory. This collaborative study includes focus groups and individual interviews with doctoral students in the humanities at both Cornell and Columbia. The study investigates whether the research library might positively impact doctoral student success in the humanities and discusses specific strategies it might employ to do so
Still Bound for Disappointment? Another Look at Faculty and Library Journal Collections
Objective – To examine why faculty members at Columbia University are dissatisfied with the library’s journal collections and to follow up on a previous study that found negative perceptions of journal collections among faculty at Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member institutions in general.Methods – In 2006, Jim Self of the University of Virginia published the results of an analysis of LibQUAL+® survey data for ARL member libraries, focusing on faculty perceptions of journal collections as measured by LibQUAL+® item IC-8: “print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work.” The current analysis includes data from 21 ARL libraries participating in the LibQUAL+® survey from 2006 through 2009. Notebooks for each library were accessed and reviewed for the Information Control and overall satisfaction scores. At Columbia, the results were used to identify departments with negative adequacy gaps for the IC-8 item. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted with 24 faculty members in these departments, focusing on their minimum expectation for journal collections, their desired expectations, and preferences for print or electronic journals.Results – Analysis of the 2009 LibQUAL+® scores shows that faculty across ARL libraries remain dissatisfied with journal collections. None of the libraries achieved a positive adequacy gap, in which the perceived level of service exceeded minimum expectations. There was no significant change in the adequacy gap for the IC-8 item since 2006, and satisfaction relative to expectations remained consistent, showing neither improvement nor decline. While most of the faculty members interviewed at Columbia stated that the journal collections met their minimum expectations, 15 of 24 reported that the library did not meet their desired level of service in this area. Key issues identified in the interviews included insufficient support from library staff and systems regarding journal acquisition and use, the need for work-arounds for accessing needed journals, problems with search and online access, collection gaps, insufficient backfile coverage, and the desire for a discipline-specific “quick list” to provide access to important journals.Conclusion – The issue of satisfaction with journal collections is complex, and faculty members have little tolerance for faulty systems. The evolution of the electronic journal collections and the inherent access challenges will continue to play a critical role in faculty satisfaction as libraries strive to provide ever-better service