Photo by jebb - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License http://www.flickr.com/photos/84989762@N00 Created with Haiku Deck

Photo by 3nglishN3rd - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License http://www.flickr.com/photos/37955987@N05 Created with Haiku Deck

INFORMATION GROUP THEMES

1. In-Person Library Use

2. Online Library Use

3. Use of Non-Hunter Libraries

4. Location of Research

5. Information Literacy

6. Overall Work Experience

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSE

1. Behavioral (factual descriptions of specific experiences)

2. Affective (how they felt about experiences)

3. Speculative (what they think could be done better)

SYNTHESIS

  In-person Use        of HCL

Remote Access Use of HCL

Use of Other Libraries

Location of    Research

Information Literacy **

Overall Work Experience

Behavioral

"Only for old journals which are not available electronically" "I have yet to step into the library" "If I need a book, I order it on Amazon".

Questions about why some journals are available electronically and others are not; why some years are available and others not – Basic lack of information regarding electronic subscriptions and embargoes.

Reports that junior faculty return to resources at previous institution.

International - uses host libraries. GOES TO THE PLACES WHERE THE MATERIALS EXIST.

Watching librarian provide instruction also informed Prof.

Junior faculty report that there is no substantive introduction to HCL/CUNY library services and resources - so they do not know what resources are available to support teaching or research /

Affective

The physical library is not a place for faculty. Value ability to send students to the library : "the librarians are fantastic".

Very frustrating.

Comfort and access to what they need, lack of knowledge about what is available at HCL, difficulties in "transferring" materials (RefWorks).

Very difficult.

Integration of Lib Instr. into course is valued! AND the primary way some new faculty acquire orientation to HCL.

Uncomfortable using the HCLs; uncomfortable teaching students to do the same.

Speculative Library refreshers for all faculty.

Library refreshers for all faculty.

Library orientation for junior faculty - esp. as resources and services support research and acquisition of tenure.

LibGuides - using course lists, outreach faculty for collaboration on content of LibGuides

Library orientation for junior faculty - esp. as resources and services support research and acquisition of tenure.

THE SURVEY’S PURPOSE

• What do faculty know about the library resources and services?

• What resources and services do they value and use in their research?

• What resources and services do they value and use for their teaching?

Do this vary by tenure status, rank, or experience?

FALS SURVEY

SURVEY CHALLENGES

• STRUCTURE

• INCENTIVE

• TOOL

• IRB

• DISTRIBUTION

Photo by TobiasMik · WhatWeDo - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License http://www.flickr.com/photos/21358963@N06 Created with Haiku Deck

xxxxxxxxxx

I see no reason to maintain print subscriptions at the branch locations. I am happy with digital access. I also find it disappointing that there are journals available elsewhere in the CUNY system to which we have no access. Seems like something is wrong with that picture.

Suggestion: PrintSuggestion: ElectronicCriticism: Interlibrary Loan

Suggestion: PrintSuggestion: ElectronicCriticism: Print

Criticism: PrintCompliment: ElectronicCriticism: Location

Variation in Approaches to Coding

Photo by Aidan Jones - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License http://www.flickr.com/photos/25945304@N00 Created with Haiku Deck

LEARNING ABOUT INTERRATER RELIABILITY: Fleiss’ Kappa

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT: From open-ended to categorical responses

Photo by misterbisson - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License http://www.flickr.com/photos/41894176272@N01 Created with Haiku Deck

Adventures in Data Analysis - first steps

● Survey design issues

● Types of responses

● What analysis can be done with this data?

Preparing the Data for Analysis

● Survey design & question format

● Cleaning & recoding

Presenting effective data visualizations

● “Mobilize every graphical element”

● Consult with others

Photo by eat more toast - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License http://www.flickr.com/photos/61063852@N00 Created with Haiku Deck

GOING FORWARD

• Developing a longitudinal data set

• Refining the survey

• Diversifying the methodologies

• Extending cohort to other campuses

REFERENCESAssociation of College and Research Libraries. “Standards for Libraries in Higher Education.”

Accessed June 2, 2014. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/standardslibraries.

Creaser, Claire, and Valerie Spezi. "Working Together: Evolving Value for Academic Libraries." Ed. Loughborough University LISU. 2012. Accessed June 2, 2014. <http://libraryvalue.wordpress.com/>.

Hightower, Christy, and Kerry Scott. “Infer More, Describe Less: More Powerful Survey Conclusions through Easy Inferential Tests,” 2012.

Mays, Regina, Carol Tenopir, and Paula Kaufman. "Lib-Value: Measuring Value and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries." Research Library Issues.271 (2010): 36-40.

Oakleaf, Megan. "The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report for the Association of College and Research Libraries." 2010. Accessed June 2, 2014. <http://www.acrl.ala.org/value/?page_id=21>.

Primary Research Group. "Information Literacy Efforts Benchmarks, 2013 Edition." 2013. Accessed June 2, 2014. <http://www.primaryresearch.com/read_more.php?press_release_id=87>.

Robbins, Sarah, Debra Engel, and Christina Kulp. “How Unique Are Our Users? Comparing Responses Regarding the Information-Seeking Habits of Engineering Faculty.” College & Research Libraries 72, no. 6 (2011): 515–32.

Tufte, Edward R., and P. R. Graves-Morris. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. 2nd Ed. Graphics press Cheshire, CT, 1983.

Descriptive survey data from 2013 indicates that 70% of the respondents are extremely or mostly satisfied with library services while less than 10% of the respondents indicated they are somewhat unsatisfied or unsatisfied.

While the informational group data suggest that faculty value relational engagement with the library, the survey data in turn suggests that they are more aware of self-service resources.

In 2013, 27% of respondents rated librarians as the most important library resource for their students. By comparison, 4% of respondents rated librarians as the most important library resource for their scholarly research. (p<0.01)

SOME KEY FINDINGS

SOME KEY DATA