College and Research Libraries ELLIS MOUNT and PAUL FASANA . An Approach to the Measurement of Use and Cost of a Large Academic Research Library System: A Report of a Study Done at Columbia University Libraries A description of the methodology used in collecting performance data in a large academic research library is given. Twelve types of surveys used to measure and evaluate users, services, and materials were developed and conducted during the period 1968/69 at Colum- bia University libraries and later evaluated. Sample results are in- cluded. Costs of providing research services were found to be 64 per- cent versus 36 percent for instructional services. INTRODUCTION CoLUMBIA UNIVERSITY is a large, com- plex academic institution situated in a changing urban environment. Student enrollment at the university is approxi- mately 18,000 ( 8,000 undergraduates and 10,000 graduates); the teaching and research faculties number approximately 6,000. 1 Library services are provided by a coordinated library system composed of thirty-five separate subject or depart- ment libraries. On a typical day, more than 10,000 patrons enter these libraries. The total organized book collection contains over four million volumes, with annual additions currently at the rate of 125,000 volumes, representing 65,000 ti- tles. In addition to the organized book collection, there are an estimated three to four million items in separately or- Mr. Mount is Science & Engineering Li- brarian, Columbia University. At the time this article was written, Mr. Fasana was Assistant to the Director, Columbia Uni- versity Libraries, New York. ganized collections such as the technical report collection, special manuscript col- lections, etc. The libraries' annual op- erating budget exceeds $5 million, with 25 percent of the total budget spent for books, serials, and binding. There are approximately 150 full-time professional librarian positions and 300 full-time cler- ical positions budgeted. As is typical in large organizations that have developed over a long period of time (the Columbia libraries date back more than 100 years), valid oper- ating data were not available in several areas seriously affecting the librarians' ability to plan and allocate resources effectively. For example, the library counted the number of items purchased and processed, but little was known about how or by whom these materials were used. One need that was most pressing involved data pertaining to the relationship between library costs in- curred to support research and those in- curred to support instruction relating to negotiation of the university's govern.:. I 199 200 I College & Research Libraries • May 1972 ment contract overhead. In order to remedy this problem, it was decided early in 1968 that the li- braries would appoint a committee of li- brarians to develop a plan to gather and analyze data on library performance and operation. Although the initial impetus for this effort was provided largely by the need to measure the amount of ef- fort and money allocated to research ra- ther than to instruction, the working group of librarians felt strongly that any plan developed should also provide mechanisms to collect data on perform- ance and cost to assist library managers in evaluating services and materials on a continuing basis. Accordingly, the com- mittee identified five categories in which data and data gathering techniques were needed. 1. Salaries and wages categorized by · type of activity (e.g., administration, processing, cataloging, reference, etc. ) 2. Space categorized by major use (e.g., reading rooms, shelving, staff work areas, etc. ) 3. Supplies and equipment by major use (e.g., card catalogs, typewriters, etc.) 4. Bibliographic materials by type (e.g., monographs, serials, documents, · microforms, etc.) 5. User services by type of activity (e.g., reference, reserves, etc.), time (e.g., use patterns during the day, se- mester, year), type of material (mono- graphs, serials, etc. ) , and type of user (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, teaching faculty, researchers, etc.) Within each of these areas, several sur- veys were designed and tested during the period 1968/69. An evaluation of these surveys was conducted in 1970/71. In the following sections, a brief description of each survey is presented, together with comments on the value and ef- fectiveness of each technique. SURVEY DESCRIPTIONS User Survey-A sampling of all users was done on selected days in all units of the libraries during the period No- vember 1, 1968, through July 24, 1969. The purpose of this survey was to iden- tify and measure major user groups and services. All users were asked to com- plete a special survey form (see Appen- dix 1). Four university-wide surveys were conducted on days selected to be representative of different · phases of the school year as well as different days of the week. The number of usable survey forms completed for each survey was: 1. November 1, 1968 (Friday) 2. January 14, 1969 (Tuesday) 3. April 2., 1969 (Wednesday) 4. July 24, 1969 (Thursday) Total 5,109 5,585 2,317 2,291 15,302 Reaction to the form was mixed, but in general most patrons were cooperative. Patrons using more than one library unit in the main library building (Butler Library) were asked to £II out a separate form for each library unit used during the day. Some of the resistance to co- operation was encountered from this group, who did not recognize the need for separate surveys in each unit. Us ers were asked to identify themselves (i.e., faculty, undergraduate, alumni, adminis- trator, etc.), to indicate what library fa- cilities they used (e.g., tables, catalog, reference assistance, etc.), and to state what kinds of material they sought, the last to measure use both within the li- brary and for material borrowed for use outside the library. The length of time spent in the library and the time of leaving were also recorded. Completed forms were later coded and the data keypunched. Three major summaries were prepared and are listed here to indicate the kind of analyses that can be done: A. Type of user (e.g., graduate stu- dent in the School of Architecture) ar- ranged by the unit of the library in which the questionnaire was filled out. B. Type of user (as above) arranged by the services used (e.g., number of reserve books used in library, length of time spent in library, etc.). C. Type of user arranged by service (as in paragraph B above) for each li- brary unit. Survey days were selected to repre- sent four different time periods: Survey 1 was a typical day in the fall semester; Survey 2 was a day shortly before final examinations; Survey 3 was a day during spring vacation; and Survey 4 a day during one of the summer sessions. This was the minimum number of surveys that could be conducted which would reflect library operations as represented by an entire school year. Different days of the week were selected to avoid, as much as possible, bias due to busier days at one time of the week over an- other. Of prime concern in planning the sur- vey was whether or not to weight the results. Several alternatives were con- sidered, one being simply to sum the four survey results and obtain an aver- age to use in calculations. If surveys were weighted, one method would be that of calculating the weight in terms of the percentage of days relative to the school year represented by each survey. For example, the third survey, represent- ing a spring vacation day, would have to be expressed as a fraction of the per- centage of the total number of vacation days in the calendar year. An alternate method considered was that of giving each survey a weight determined by the ratio of books borrowed during the sur- vey period to the total number borrowed throughout the year. That is, if the third survey represented a period of activity in the school year (vacation days) in which 11 percent of the annual circula- tion took place, it would have been weighted as 11 percent of every item it measured (i.e., seats used, reference questions asked, etc. ) . Both methods of weighting were com- puted and then compared with the sim- Measurement of Use and Cost I 201 ple method of taking an average of the four surveys. In applying the results to one survey item (type of user) it was found that the two weighting methods were almost identical, and varied only approximately 1 percent from the aver- age, unweighted figures. Therefore, it was decided that it would be statistical- ly valid to use a simple average of four surveys. These summaries were useful in de- scribing the different groups of users, the services or materials each used, the length of time spent in libraries, etc. For example, in the Engineering Library, engineering graduate students were the heaviest users of the library, using from two to four times as many nonreserve books as undergraduate engineering stu- dents. The use of reserve books by the two groups was almost equal. Not too surprisingly, the materials used most by the engineering faculty were periodicals. By contrast, in the Music Library, grad- uate students used five times as many nonreserve books as undergraduates. Moreover, music faculty used nonreserve books far more than periodicals. Con- clusions affecting budget allocation, ser- vice hours, and many other aspects of library operations could well benefit from consideration of the quantitative data generated by this survey. Circulation Survey.-As a further ex- tension and check of the User Survey, all library units were asked to record circulation totals for each day they were open, beginning October 1, 1968, through September 30, 1969. This enabled us to determine whether survey days weTe in fact typical of periods they had been chosen to represent. A comparison of data, shown in Table 1, indicates that survey days were reasonably typical. The higher loan :fi.gures on survey days may in part be explained by the fact that the average loan figure includes Saturdays and Sundays which are both light usage days. Door Checks.-Two door checks were 202 I College & Research Libraries • May 1972 conducted to determine the composition of all users on typical days (as distinct from the survey days when we knew through observation that all users had not actually completed a user survey form). Although these door checks were conducted relatively late in the study (Friday, May 9, 1969, and Wednesday, May 14, 1969) the distribution of cate- gories of patrons in the User Survey and Door Checks agreed clos·ely with each other as shown in Table 2. Special User Survey.-A sampling of faculty members, graduate students, and research staff members was conducted, asking such questions as services used, purpose, and frequency of library used (see Appendix 2). This survey attempt- ed to characterize in greater detail that segment of the libraries' us-er popula- tion involved primarily in noninstruc- tional activities. Measuring the instruc- tional use of the library can be done rel- atively straightforwardly by counting stu- dents and the types of materials used. Research use of the libraries, by con- trast, is more difficult to define and mea- sure. A random sample for each user category was selected in the following manner: ( 1) for faculty members, sen- ior research staff, and administrative staff, every tenth name from the Uni- versity Telephone Directory for 1968- 69 was selected, yielding 500 names; ( 2) for research workers on the technician and research assistant level, every fourth name on a list of all employees in these categories was selected; ( 3) for grad- uate students at . the master's and doc- toral candidate level, every sixteenth name on a list of all such students was selected. The total sample approximated 1,300 names. The questionnaire was mailed in January 1969 to the total sam- ple. Of 1,300 questionnaires sent, 570 responses were received. More than 50 percent response was received in each category except the technician sample. Questionnaires were carefully filled out by the respondents; few misinterpreta- tions of the questions were detected in the analysis. Appendix 3 shows the results of the Special User survey analyzed according to reason for use, i.e., Research, Instruc- tion, Both Research and Instruction, and TABLE 1 CoMPARISON oF CmcULATION FIGURES Survey Dates November 1, 1968 January 14, 1969 April 12, 1969 July 24, 1969 Volumes Loaned TABLE 2 4,254 6,297 3,112 2,677 Volumes Loaned on an Average Day in Period Shown 4,035 (Oct. 11- Nov. 4) 5,250 (Jan. 6-Jan. 19) 2,300 (Mar. 30-Apr. 5) 1,880 (June 9- Aug. 29) CATEGORIEs OF UsERS oF THE CoLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIEs Type of User Average of Door Checks Average of Surveys Students (Total) 78.2% 75.2% Undergraduates 22.8 21.7 Graduates 55.4 53.5 Faculty and Staff 11.5 11.1 Faculty 5.4 5.9 Staff 6.1 5.2 Not Columbia 10.3 13.7 100.0% 100.0% Other. (The definitions for these terms are given in Appendix 2.) The users' re- sponses were weighted according to the frequ ency of use by the category of users during the school year. The responses for all users were distributed as follows (see Appendix 3 for greater detail) : Type of Use Research 46.9% Instruction 31.8 Both Research and Insh·uction 11.4 Other 9.9 Assuming that the "Both" figure can b e divided evenly b etween Research and In- struction, the total for Research becomes 52.6 percent for this group of users. Circulation of Library Materials Reference Service Measurement of Use and Cost I 203 etc. ) and for method of processing within Technical Services (e.g., Rush, original cataloging, etc. ) . In addition, both faculty and library staff were asked to evaluate each item as to its probable use at Columbia (e.g., research, instruc- tion, both, etc.). The information thus gathered provided a ratio which was used to allocate the costs of materials as well as salaries of staff working in Technical Services units. A form (see Appendix 4) was insert- ed in each monograph entering the Ac- quisitions Department during each of the two test weeks in the spring of 1969. A special form was used to evaluate p eri- odicals and special materials (e.g., t ech- Percentage 52.3 11 Collection Development and Maintenance Administration Man-hours 5,462 1,177 2,621 970 410 24.2 9.1 3.8 Other (professional, miscellaneous ) Total Staff Survey (Reader Services) .-A survey of the library staff involved pri- marily in public service activities was conducted for a period of one week in December 1968. The purpose of this sur- vey was to establish broad categories of activities common to all public service units and to measure the percentage of time which was spent by various levels of staff performing these different ac- tivities. In addition, staff were asked to categorize times within an activity by type of user. This estimate was intend- ed to represent an annual summary of how they spent their time. A general summary of the data shows the follow- ing analysis of activities: Literature Survey (Current).-An analysis was performed of all biblio- graphic materials acquired during cer- tain periods to determine their nature and intended use. Data were gathered for method of acquisition (gift, purchase, 10,640 100.4 nical reports, maps, etc.) since they do not normally follow the same process of cataloging and acquisitions. Approximately 3,100 monographs were evaluated during the two one-week test periods; 76 percent judged by faculty and library staff to be primarily for "Re- search" use; 6 percent primarily for "In- struction"; and 17 percent for both "Re- search and Insh·uction." Again, assuming that half of the "Both" can be assigned to "Research," the total imput in support of "Research" approximates 85 percent. A number of interesting relationships were established. For example, approxi- mately 91 percent of all monographs given original cataloging were evaluated as research items. Serials as a whole were judged to be 80 percent for research use. Literature Survey (Retrospective).- The object of this survey was to estimate the potential use of monographic litera~ ture already in the collection. A random 204 I College & Research Libraries • May 1972 sample of shelves was selected in each library, and faculty and librarians were asked to evaluate each book on these shelves as to probable use. Faculty and librarians evaluated the same shelves of books independently on a title-by-title basis; the results were compared later. The correlation between the two evalua- tions was surprisingly close. Approxi- mately 80 percent of the books were judged by both groups to be primarily for .. Research" use. As mentioned in the survey of current acquisitions, period- icals and special materials were evaluat- ed on an overaii basis by faculty and li- brarians as to the percentage used for research, rather than on a volume-by- volume analysis. One use of the results of this survey was to estimate the pro- portion of stack space required to house research and instructional materials. Staff Survey (Cataloging Depart- ment).-Vnit costs were calculated of various activities in the Cataloging De- partment. These costs were in pait based on a study of processing costs done pre- viously.3 Since many of the activities had not changed significantly, the fig- ures used, in fact, simply updated the earlier studies. The study revealed that processing costs had risen at a rate of aJ?proximately 6 percent per year. The Cataloging Staff Survey cost data were correlated with the current literature survey to allocate cataloging costs rough- ly into "Research" and "Instruction." An analysis of other survey data was also performed so as to determine a similar allocation of salary costs of other cata- loging functions such as card produc- tion, serials handling, etc. Space Survey.-A detailed study of library space was undertaken to estab- lish space aiiocation for library staff, users, and coiiections. This was done by analyzing floor plans for each library unit and assigning all space to one of these three purposes. About one half million square feet was analyzed. Data from the other surveys provided data to determine the portion of space each unit used for research; approximately 63 percent of all library space was used pri- marily for research purposes. Literature Cost Analysis.-The total library expenditure for bibliographic ma- terials was computed and categorized in terms of serials, monographs, and com- mercial bi'nding. Using data from the Lit- erature Survey (Current) for both seri- als and monographs, literature costs for various different purposes were calcu- lated. Several of the results were of spe- cial interest. It was found, for example, that as much as 84 percent of all cur- rent monograph costs could reasonably be characterized as being associated with research activities. Serials and docu- ment studies revealed approximately the same figures. Salary Survey.-Data from various sur- veys which reflected how the library staff spent its time were correlated with salary figures to convert time into dol- lar amounts. Administrative salaries were charged to r.esearch and instruction using the same ratio as the effective average of percentage aiiocation used for the Read- er Service ( 34.9 percent for research) and the T echnical Service staff ( 84.5 per- cent for research), on the assumption that administrators were equally inter- ested and responsible for performing both services. The effective average of the two types of services was 57 percent for research. Equipment and Supply Survey.-An inventory and review of expendable sup- plies, furnishings, telephones, travel, binding supplies, etc., was conducted. Using percentages and rations developed in the staff salary and user surveys, costs for general equipment and sup- plies were allocated in a number of ways. Within the context of research and in- struction, for example, it was deter- mined that one could reasonably aiiocate 45 percent of all such costs to instruc- tional purposes, and 55 percent for re- search purposes. CoNCLUSION This experimental project has pro- duced a large mass of data and experi- ence which will take considerable time to organize, analyze, and digest fully.4, 5 But preliminary analyses have already proVIded the libraries with significant results which are beginning to affect the libraries' policies and attitudes. One ex- ample of this is the determination of the ra~o of. instruction to research in a large umvers1ty. The results of the entire set of surveys has led us to the conclusion that for Columbia 64.5 percent of the libraries' budget and 63.3 percent of all library space can be allocated to re- search logically. This finding has already begun to be used in long-range plan- ning, especially with respect to user services. Other facts gleaned from the surveys are not as obvious or as immediate in ~eir significance for administrative plan- m~g. As . an example, one interesting pomt whiCh the user survey disclosed is that a few "heavy" users account for a significant proportion of the circulation activity. For example, 14 percent of the graduate students accounted for 37 per- cent of all reserve books checked out while 25 percent of the same group of users borrowed 53 percent of the non- reserve books checked out. Overall, it was found that roughly 40 percent of the users accounted for 70 percent of our cir- culation, considering all user groups and all types of materials. Appendix 5 summarizes how various user ?roups employ different types of matenals (books, periodicals, etc.) and various library services and facilities (card catalog, reference assistance, etc.). Measurement of Use and Cost 1 205 For example, graduate students in gen- eral head all users of the libraries in per capita borrowing figures except fac- ulty members. Their domination in the use of certain facilities is also evident· for example, 57 percent of those using study tables are graduate students. Grad- uate students also account for over 48 percent of the use of the card catalogs. So the effects of graduate studies at a university are ~eRected graphically in the observed use patterns. Work is progressing to develop bet- ter methods of collecting data on a con- tinuing basis throughout the system. Al- though no final decisions have yet been made, or encompassing data gathering routines implemented, the need for valid data has been recognized and steps to insure that they are collected consistent- ly and comprehensively are underway. The experience gained from this effort will be invaluable in designing systems of continuous data gathering. REFERENCES 1. If one includes Columbia affiliates, such as Barnard College, Teachers College, Union Theological Seminary, etc., the student population would be increased to about 35,000 and the faculty total to about 10,000. 2. This figure does not include overhead and fringe benefit costs. 3. P. J. Fasana and J. E. Pall, "Processing Costs for Science Monographs in the Co- lumbia University Libraries," Library Re- sources & Technical Services 11:97- 114 (Winter 1967 ) . 4. The services of Dr. Abram Jagge of the Bu- reau of Applied Social Research at Colum- bia University in the design and analysis o! the surveys are acknowledged; his as- sistance was invaluable to us. 5. Work on the project was partially funded with monies from the National Science Foun- dation (NSF GN-694). , I . . 206 I College & Research Libraries • May 1972 APPENDIX 1 COLUIIIA UIIIYEIISITY LIIIIAIIIES USEII SUIIYEY 1111-1111 We neeCJ your help. Will you give us o few minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire? Columbia University needs accurate doto on who uses the libraries and what services they require. The results of this survey will hove o substantial influence on the University's future capacity to finance the Library program. Thonlc you lor your assistance. INSTRUCTIONS Richard H. Logsdon Director of Libraries In the appropriate section below please check the ane bax best describing your status as a user of the Columbia Libraries today. - NOTE: If you are using or borrowing library materials as a deputy for ANOTHER PERSON, please check this box 0, and also indicate the status of THAT PERSON in the section below. MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS, LAMONT & SOOAL WORK Under· Graduate Post d~:'~ School or Division araduate Gladuate andldllte Architecture ••••••••••••• ·r---1---+---+--~ Arts •••••••••••••••••• ·~--· -.,, .. _, --1----f---+----1 Business ••••••••••••••• '!--"-··· -+---:--+---:+--:----1 MEDICAL CENTER STUDENT Specify School or Division : ar~~::~ Graduate IF YOU ARE A DEGREE CANDIDATE, SPECIFY THE DEGREE ( e.a~ BS, MS, DDS, MD) Post Non· Grad. ~~~~~ Columbia Colleae •••••••••• 't---1---t--..:.....+--~ Enaineerina •••••••••••••• ·t---1---:---:-+---.,...+--~ Foreian Student Center • • • • • • ..,.:_;_ lr-----------;====r=====r===::;- Resident Fellow General Studies •••••• .••••• '1---1-·-'· ';;...·;;...·'"'..:..' t--..:.....+-----1 Graduate Faculties ••••••••• 't---1---t---+"-----1··· lntemational Affairs •••••••• '1--.,...-+· --+---+----1 Intern Journalism •••••••••••••••• !-->~··"' -"-·· + · ---+---+----1 Law ••••••••••••••••••• 1-·....:·'-''.;_.:' -=--+---+---+-~ 1~:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=~==::::==~=::::_ Librlfy Service ••••••••••• •t-..:......,.:.;...t---+---+--~ Social Work •••••••••••••• ·t-'·';;...: '.:..·'.:.;.:.'+--+---+----1 Other •••••••••••••••••• ''----'----.1.....--.1.....-----J IF YOU ARE A DEGREE CANDIDATE, SPECIFY THE DEGREE ( e.a. BA, MS, LLB, PhD) Columbia Corporation (all ranks) OTHER ___ Research personnel ( Full·time only, e.g.,Research Associate) ___ Other Columbia University staff or employees ___ Fifnily of Faculty or Staff ___ Attiliated institution ( Barnatd, Teachers Colleae, etc.) Specify----------- ___ Alumni ___ Not associated with Columbia University ~ (Columbia Corporation) Specify Department Specify Rank Other Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center Staff --- (Specify Status>------------ ---Family of Faculty or Staff ___ Affiliated institution ( C.P.S., Harlem, SL Luke's, etc.) Specify--------------- ---Alumni ___ Not associated with Columbia University J Measurement of Use and Cost I 201 APPENDIX 1 ( cont' d ) NOTE: Please answer all questions below on the basis of THIS VISIT to the Library. 1. Literature used lli the I i brary. Books ( Reserve ) Books ( Non-Reserve) Periodicals NUMBER OF' VOLS. USED IN LIBRARY Other (Please specify, e.g., maps, newspapers, microforms, government documents, prints) 2. Literature CHECKED OUT of the library. Books ( Reserve ) Books (Non-Reserve) Periodicals NUMBER OF' VOLS. CHECKED OUT OF LIBRARY Other (Please specify, e.g. maps, newspapers, microforms, government documents, prints) 3. Study tables, desks, etc. - Did you use any of these facilities? __ Yes No 4. Card catalog, other files - Did you use any of these fac"ilities? Yes __ No 5. Reference assistance - Did you use any of the following services? ___ Assistance in identifying a reference to a book or a journal article, etc. ___ Assistance in the use of the card catalog and other aids ___ Location of material on a particular subject __ Interlibrary loans ___ Other reference assistance 6. Approximately how much time did you spend in the library during this visit? __ Hours _Minutes r ~ ('·4 -;.,; ~::. ~ ' '..t 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 11 Please give this questionnaire to a member of the library staff as you leave the library. If you have additional comments, please write them on the reverse side of this form. Signature (Optional)--------------------- 208/ College & Research Libraries • May 1972 APPENDIX 2 Columbia University Libraries Special User Survey April1969 ~ l. Please .check the one box best describing your status in relation to Columbia Univer- sity: a. Graduate student (If graduate student, candidate for what degree- MS, PhD, etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) b. Faculty member of Columbia Corporation (all ranks) c. Research personnel (such as Research associates) d. Hospital staff member ~ e. Other Columbia University staff member f. Other (specify position title 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 2. Indicate, by checking all the boxes which are appropriate, those activities in which you participate at Columbia University: a. Teaching b. Research (Funded either personally or by an organization) c. Patient care d. Administration (or related to FuU-Time Part-Time administration) . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e. Graduate study (course work) . . . . . . . . . 0 • 0 0 • 0 • 3. About how often did you use any of the Columbia University Libraries during the 1968-69 school year? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Never 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 Once or twice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 About once a month, on the average 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 About once ·a week, on the average 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Several times a week, on the average • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 Almost daily 4. Did you use the library last week? 0 0 0 Yes No 5. In the following question, please use these definitions as a guide in describing the rea- sons for your library use during the 1968- 69 school year: RESEARCH-Primarily used for: Faculty and research personnel's research projects, whether funded by local or personal means or by outside agencies. Keeping faculty members and other research personnel up to date in their fields of re- search. Preparation by students of doctoral dissertations, master's essays, and major research papers in law or medicine. INSTRUCTIONAL-Primarily used for: Students' work in connection with courses, whether undergraduate or graduate. Faculty members' preparation for classroom presentation, or general background devel- opment useful in the classroom, or guidance of the work of graduate students toward advanced degrees. BOTH RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL-Used about equally for Research and Instruction. OTHER-Related to activities of professional organizations, administrative activities, rec- creational or personal activities, etc. For each type of library material which you used please indicate as best you can the approximate percentage of use devoted to "Research," "Instructional," "Both," and "Other" purposes. Leave the spaces blank for categories of material you did not use. (Your total use for each type of material used should add up to 100%.) .... Measurement of Use and Cost I 209 a. Books: Research Use Instructional Use Both R & I Use Other Use Total Use .... % .. .. % .. .. % .. . . % 100% .APPENDIX 2 ( COnt' d) b. Periodicals: Research Use Instructional Use Both R & I Use Other Use Total Use .. .. % .... % .... % . . .. % 100% c. Government Documents, Technical Reports: Research Use Instructional Use Both R & I Use Other Use Total Use .... % . ... % .... % .. · . . % 100% Other Library Materials (please specify; e.g., Newspapers; Manuscript material; Micro- forms; Prints, drawings, maps; Recordings; Music, printed): d . ..... .. ... . . e ... .... . . . .. . Research Use .... % Research Use Instructional Use .... % Instructional Use Both R & I Use .... % Both R & I Use Other Use .... % Other Use Total Use 100% Total Use Signature (optional) Please return your completed questionnaire to: .... % .... % . . . . % .. . . % 100% f . ......... . . . Research Use Instructional Use Both R & I Use Other Use Total Use Mr. Ellis Mount Engineering Library 422 S. W. Mudd Thank you for your cooperation. .... % . ... % .... % .... % 100% 1.'0 APPENDIX 3 ~ 0 Research and Instructional Use of Library Materials - (Results of the survey described in Appendix 2) (') c ~ Books Periodicals Government Documents Newspapers O"Q ~ Res. Inst. R & I Other Total Res. Inst. R&I Other Total Inst. R&I Other Total Res. Inst. R & I Other Total G- Res. ~ Grad. Students 32.7 47.4 15.1 4.8 100.0 40.1 39.0 12.3 8.6 100.0 49.2 31.9 13.1 5.8 100.0 31.9 21.7 8.6 37.9 100.1 ~ PhD 41.8 35.1 17.6 5.5 100.0 51.0 29.7 18.4 2.7 49.2 100.0 c., 28.6 12.7 7.7 100.0 66.2 16.8 7.9 9.1 100.0 ~ ~ Master's 21.3 63.0 11.9 3.8 100.0 26.5 52.0 11.7 9.8 100.0 35.4 44.2 17.2 3.2 100.0 33.5 24.0 12.8 29.7 100.0 ~ ~ Faculty 47.6 35.4 12.9 4.1 100.0 61.3 24.9 9.4 4.4 100.0 64.5 26.1 7.5 1.9 100.0 65.5 25.9 8.6 100.0 ~ Research 77.4 15.3 3.3 4.0 100.0 86.2 8.6 1.7 3.5 100.0 93.5 2.3 3.5 0.7 100.0 9.1 17.9 73.0 100.0 t""' .... Other 52.4 29.3 12.7 32.6 100.0 32.5 24.4 8.8 34.3 100.0 33.3 15.3 13.1 38.3 100.0 39.2 60.8 100.0 ~ Total 38.8 40.9 13.5 6.8 100.0 48.0 32.2 10.4 9.4 100.0 54.7 26.7 11.2 7.4 100.0 35.2 20.5 6.6 37.7 100.0 a ~ ~· Manuscripts Microfilm Prints Recordings c., Grad. Students 66.0 25.8 2.5 5.7 100.0 59.4 22.9 10.9 6.8 100.0 53.5 29.4 16.2 0.9 100.0 10.3 89.7 100.0 ~ PhD 70.7 21.3 8.0 100.0 67.0 9.9 18.0 5.1 100.0 66.7 33.3 100.0 10.3 89.7 100.0 ~ ~ Master's 54.8 36.6 8.6 100.0 48.5 41.8 0.5 9.2 100.0 41.0 25.8 31.4 1.8 100.0 ....... Faculty 95.1 4.9 100.0 72.5 21.8 5.2 0.5 100.0 78.6 14.3 7.1 100.0 4.9 85.3 4.9 4.9 100.0 c:o Research 80.9 17.2 1.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 52.1 38.5 9.4 100.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 tJ Other 45.5 54.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.8 18.2 100.0 Total 73.1 20.5 2.0 4.4 100.0 62.5 22.3 9.6 5.6 100.0 61.3 24.6 12.0 2.1 100.0 7.0 46.9 5.1 41.0 100.0 Music, printed Other Total Grad. Students 2.1 . ll.5 86.4 100.0 57.3 25.7 17.0 100.0 41.0 36.6 12.9 9.5 100.0 PhD 2.3 97.7 100.0 55.0 42.2 2.8 100.0 50.6 25.8 13.3 10.3 100.0 Master's 100.0 100.0 60.8 39.2 100.0 30.0 49.1 12.4 8.5 100.0 Faculty 29.8 25.1 25.1 20.0 100.0 35.7 1.3 57.2 5.8 100.0 57.9 28.3 10.0 3.8 100.0 Research 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.3 10.0 2.4 5.3 100.0 Other 100.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 30.4 22.6 10.7 36.3 100.0 Total 12.6 16.3 9.1 62.0 100.0 60.1 0.1 24.4 15.4 100.0 46.9 31.8 11.4 9.9 100.0 Physics QB 44 Measurement of Use and Cost I 211 APPENDIX 4 Survey Form Used to Analyze Currently Acquired Materials Columbia Univ. Libs.Literature Survey ACQUISITIONS CATALOGING Sources New LC Book Ord • New Orig. • S576 Smart, William Marshall, 1889- G1fts-t:x. I Repl. Ser.-Doc. IACICieCI Slavic Con tin. 1968 The riddle of the universe. New York, Wiley [1968] 228p Other(specify) Copy For Dupll. Rush Other(specl fy) Non-rush Uncat. for Net pr1ce EVALUATION Faculty L ibrar1an Research Only r=: Instruc. un IY l Both Res. & Inst. 0 APPENDIX 5 Type of Use Made of Libraries, by Type of User, Four User Surveys Literature checked out of library Literature used in library No. persons who: Used Received Items per Items per study tables, reference Type of user No. persons No. items person No. persons No. items person card catalogs assist. Students 3,626 7,478 2.1 10,197 28,309 2.8 14,126 3,576 Undergraduate 1,197 2,376 2.0 2,208 5,125 2.3 3,690 909 Graduate 2,319 4,783 2.1 7,633 22,364 2.9 9,909 2,541 Nondegree no 319 3.0 356 820 2.3 527 126 Faculty and Staff 624 1,259 2.0 1,416 3,950 2.8 1,779 672 Faculty 340 738 2.2 751 2,314 3.1 954 367 Research 89 181 2.0 290 760 2.6 326 no Medical Center~ 59 100 1.7 145 331 2.3 163 44 Other Staff 136 240 1.8 230 545 2.4 336 151 Non-Columbia 479 999 2.1 1,701 5,679 3.3 2,708 880 Total 4,729 9,736 2.1 13,314 37,938 2.8 18,613 5,128 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION Students 77 76 77 75 76 71 Undergraduate 26 24 17 14 20 18 Graduate 49 49 57 59 53 50 Nondegree 2 3 3 2 3 3 Faculty and Staff 13 14 n 10 10 13 Faculty 7 8 6 6 5 7 Research 2 2 2 2 2 2 Medical Center~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 Other Staff 3 3 2 1 2 3 Non-Columbia 10 10 13 15 14 17 Total 100 100 101 100 100 101 0 Excludes medical students and medical faculty (which are included with "Faculty" and "'students,.).