College and Research Libraries Research Notes Library Resources of a Metropolitan University-Assessment by Users James E. Prather, Ralph E. Russell, and Michael L. Clemons The decade of the 1970s brought height- ened public awareness on issues of ac- countability and program effectiveness for colleges and universities. This awareness has prompted many to examine seriously the extent to which their libraries are effec- tively serving students, faculty, and oth- ers. Library effectiveness may be defined in terms of each library's level of ability to respond to user needs for information and information sources within the context of its own unique situational and environ- mental constraints. 1 Such assessment of effectiveness has proved valuable to li- brary planning and policymaking pro- cesses, particularly in the rationale offered for augmented financial support for li- brary operations. Increasingly, libraries and other university components must justify their budgets by measures of how well they meet the demands of their clien- tele. 2 How better to determine the level of success for a library than by asking library users? PREVIOUS STUDIES Many studies have focused on the char- acteristics of library use and users. Most such studies have been concerned with public library use. The literature provides little explanation of library use in urban universities, nor have there been many at- tempts to study group attitudes toward li- brary use. 3 Additionally, the literature about library use in a nontraditional uni- versity and its implications for financial planning is minimal. In a review of studies on library users, the difficulties in defining and meeting the needs of such users have been acknowl- edged. The diversity of a university li- brary's user population makes difficult the definition of the needs of that popula- tion. Having defined the needs, problems in accommodating those needs are sub- stantial. The first step, definition of user needs, however, is essential, albeit diffi- cult and complex. It is the task frequently ignored-or abandoned to a scattershot or ''guesswork'' methodology. Libraries of- ten serve clienteles other than those for which they are specifically funded. Our tradition of publicly supported, freely available public libraries has generated a James E. Prather is senior research associate, Office of Institutional Planning, Georgia State University, At- lanta, Georgia; Ralph E. Russell is university librarian, Pullen Library, Georgia State University, Atlanta; and Michael L. Clemons is research associate, Office of Institutional Research and Planning, Atlanta Junior College, Georgia. 59 60 College & Research Libraries January 1983 widely held assumption that ''libraries are free and available to all." Few libraries serve with any frequency more than a small portion of their target population. It follows, then, that the re- sources allocated to a university library are expended to serve a minority of that li- brary's target population of users. This narrow segment of users may be ex- tremely demanding and sophisticated, but they are, nevertheless, expensive when measured against total library costs. It is imperative that library administrators and staff develop and use information re- garding the types and level of use made of collections and services. A survey of library users at a state uni- versity reported that 89 percent were affili- ated with the institution. Other constitu- encies were students from local colleges and some general public users. 4 In a study of faculty members' perceptions, the length of time at the institution influenced their attitude toward the library. 5 At a community college it was found that nei- ther level of education nor field of study were indicative of the users' attitudes about the library. 6 PURPOSE The present study examines the charac- teristics of library users and library use, and perceptions of library adequacy held by those users at a large, urban university. Questions include: 1. What are the institutional affiliations of the library users? 2. Are there patterns and what are the frequencies of use among various sub- groupings of the university population? 3. How do various subpopulations per- ceive the library's adequacy? This analysis also addresses library use by library users at a nontraditional univer- sity. The centrality of location within the metropolitan area and the abundance of other private and public colleges in the area also influence demands upon the li- brary. METHODS A survey instrument was constructed by a library committee in conjunction with the institutional research staff. Based upon a pilot study, a relatively uncompli- cated instrument design was used to pro- mote questionnaire return. A random sample was stratified by day and time. Questionnaires were distributed to users as they entered the library. Surveys were administered on nine consecutive days, . including two weekends, during the win- ter quarter. Of 6,157 questionnaires ad- · ministered, 54.5 percent were returned. RESULTS User Affiliation The affiliation and/ or status of the li- brary user sample is presented in table 1, where it is cross-classified with major field of study. Affiliated Users. In a sample of 3,356 us- ers, 85 percent indicate affiliation with the university. Affiliated undergraduate stu- dents are 51 percent of all users; affiliated graduate students are 29 percent. Faculty and alumni are each 2 percent of all users, while staff comprises 1 percent. Unaffiliated Users. Users from a private- college confederation are 6 percent of all users. High-school students, members of the business community, and other non- affiliated college students constitute the rest of this user group. Field. More than one-third of the library users indicated their field of interest to be business administration, followed by edu- cation at 10 percent. Users in the health and sciences fields are each 8 percent of the total users. Among faculty, use by foreign-language faculty is highest (12 percent), followed by physical sciences (8 percent), and letters, mathematics, and social sciences, each comprising 6 percent. Library use by alumni is 7 percent in art, 10 percent in letters, 5 percent in psychology, and 3 percent in communications and public affairs. The users from the private- college confederation constitute 15 per- cent of the public affairs users, 13 percent of the social sciences, 21 percent of the bi- ology, 9 percent of the finance, and 7 per- cent of the management users. Patterns and Frequency of Use Purpose of Visit. The cross-classifications of affiliation and/or status with responses on types of library use are presented in ta- Research Notes 61 TABLE 1 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF AFFILIATION AND/OR STATUS WITH MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY (N = 3356) Affiliated Under Fac- Pvt . Fields Total Grad Grad ulty Staff Alum . lnst . Other Biolofc 4 59 11 0 2 1 21 6 Bus. dmin . 34 57 32 1 0 1 5 4 Curr. & I. 4 83 2 1 3 3 6 2 Info. Sys. 4 66 26 1 0 0 3 4 Education 10 29 62 3 1 1 1 3 Art 3 64 12 2 4 7 1 10 For. Lang. 2 58 23 12 2 0 0 5 Health 8 70 15 3 0 0 2 10 Letters 4 53 19 6 4 10 1 7 Math. 2 75 2 6 0 0 0 17 Phy. Sci. 2 64 16 8 0 0 0 12 Psych. 3 26 59 3 0 5 0 7 Public Ser. 3 46 30 1 0 3 15 5 Soc. Sci. 8 52 23 6 1 2 13 3 Total% 100 51 29 2 1 2 6 9 Note : The Total column pert::ents read down. Each row except for the Total column reads across . ble 2. The affiliated students are least likely to be looking for books (31 percent), while nonaffiliated users mainly seek books. Thirty-two percent of both gradu- ate students and alumni are looking for periodicals. Fifty-eight percent of the affil- iated undergraduate users intend to study personal notes and texts. Forty-seven per- cent of the users from the private college confederation intend to study, as do 38 percent of the users from the technical in- stitute. Affiliated graduate students are more likely to use the library for term- paper research or course assignments than undergraduate students (53 percent versus 42 percent). Personal research is the purpose for 49 percent of the staff us- age, 42 percent of alumni, and 24 percent of faculty, compared to only 11 percent for all users. Use of the library for leisure reading is the purpose in coming to the library for 12 percent of all users. Fifteen percent of the undergraduates and 7 percent of the grad- uate students intend to use it for leisure. Twenty-seven percent of the university staff use it for purposes of leisure, as do 24 percent of the alumni and 16 percent of the faculty. Frequency of Use. Thirty-four percent of all users responding use the library daily, 46 percent weekly, 12 percent monthly, and 8 percent less than monthly. Forty- one percent of undergraduate students in- dicate daily use. By comparison, 35 per- cent of all faculty members and 36 percent of the staff use it daily. Of students from the private-college confederation, 12 per- cent of the respondents use it daily, and 46 percent weekly. For affiliated users, 87 percent of the undergraduates and 85 per- cent of the graduate students visit weekly or more frequently. Use by Respondents' Major Field of Study. Table 3 presents the cross-classification of responses to questions on library use with major field of study of the respondents. Foreign-languages users are most likely seeking books. Other fields likely to seek books are mathematics, biology, letters, physical sciences, social sciences, public affairs, art, and information services. Those fields looking for magazines/jour- nals include business administration, marketing, management, finance, ac- counting, psychology, education, and communications. Those users who enter with the purpose of studying personal notes and texts are in the following disci- plines: physical sciences, biology, infor- mation systems, health, accounting, fi- nance, mathematics, business administra- tion, and marketing. The fields least likely to be in the library for personal study are: art, foreign languages, psychology, and education. Use of the library for specific 62 College & Research Libraries January 1983 TABLE 2 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF AFFILIATION AND/OR STATUS WITH RESPONSES ON TYPES OF LIBRARY USAGE (N = 3356) Affiliated Under Fac- Pvt . Total Grad Grad ulty Staff Alum . Inst . Total% 100 51 29 2 1 2 6 Uses: % % % % % % % Books 37 38 31 37 46 41 49 Magazines 27 24 32 31 24 32 24 Other 23 27 22 26 27 14 10 Books & Ma~azines 9 6 12 7 3 12 12 Purposes(% es): Study 47 58 42 1 0 9 47 Course Assgn. 44 41 53 1 0 10 66 Personal 11 11 9 24 49 42 9 Job 6 4 5 13 39 29 5 Faculty 3 0 2 59 12 2 1 Thesis 5 1 10 2 0 2 10 Leisure 12 15 7 16 27 24 5 "Other" 8 9 7 13 6 3 1 Freauency : oa·y 34 41 33 35 46 7 12 Weekly 46 46 52 55 33 41 46 Monthly 12 9 11 7 18 24 24 Less 8 4 4 2 3 29 18 Meets Needs: All 34 41 28 13 12 19 24 Most 55 51 62 74 58 58 63 Some 8 6 7 11 27 19 8 Seldom 1 1 1 0 3 3 2 Photocopy(% Adequacy Yes): 67 70 59 62 70 53 81 Note: Other nonaffiliated users are excluded. course assignments or term papers is most fields of biology, foreign languages, math- frequently found in psychology, educa- ematics, accounting, and finance. Those tion, and public affairs. The fields of study fields more likely to use it at least once a that use the library least for course assign- week include public affairs, psychology, ments or term papers are physical sci- education, marketing, management, art, ences, mathematics, accounting, biology, social sciences, business administration, health, and information systems. communications, information systems, Personal research is the stated purpose and health. It met all or most of the needs for users in the fields of art, foreign Ian- for 90 percent of the users in the fields of guages, letters, and mathematics. On the biology, business administration, educa- other hand, the fields of accounting, mar- tion, health, mathematics, physical sci- keting, finance, and management show a ences, psychology, accounting, finance, low level of usage for personal research. and management. Entering the library for leisure reading is Residential Patterns of Users. Given the the purpose of 12 percent of the users. The central metropolitan location of the uni- fields that have the highest levels of lei- versity and its status as a commuter sure reading include letters, art, biology, school, the distance from the residence of information systems, and mathematics. the user to the library is an appropriate Leisure reading is more unlikely for users question. This section reports findings in the fields of education, psychology, from the cross-classification of selected public affairs, finance, and marketing. metropolitan locations with responses on Frequency of Visit. Patrons who are more its use. Location was determined on the likely to use the library daily are in the basis of ZIP codes. A separate analysis de- TABLE 3 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY WITH RESPONSES TO LIBRARY USAGE (N = 3356) T B BA c IS E A FL H L M PS p PA 55 N 3356 132 1125 121 148 350 84 43 197 140 48 61 206 98 280 Uses: % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Books: 37 49 30 35 39 35 43 61 35 49 50 46 30 43 46 Magazines 27 18 32 31 20 32 24 12 24 22 10 12 36 28 23 Other 23 28 27 21 30 17 13 23 27 15 35 23 18 14 19 Books & Ma~azines 9 3 6 9 5 13 13 2 9 11 2 12 13 12 12 Purposes (% es); 30 43 41 Study 47 64 55 46 66 36 24 28 59 40 52 75 Course Assgn. 44 37 44 48 37 55 39 44 36 41 27 25 59 63 49 Personal 11 14 7 15 9 11 23 23 9 22 17 15 11 15 14 Job 6 2 6 7 5 7 8 2 5 6 8 3 4 10 7 Faculty 3 0 2 0 1 3 2 7 0 6 6 10 4 2 6 Thesis 5 4 2 2 1 8 6 2 3 7 0 5 10 12 10 Leisure 12 18 12 14 15 6 18 14 11 23 15 12 7 7 10 Other 8 4 6 11 7 7 13 14 11 14 2 8 5 8 7 Fre3uency: 39 21 37 Da'y 34 47 39 39 42 20 29 44 34 39 46 22 Weekly 46 36 44 43 44 55 49 42 49 41 42 48 64 60 47 Monthly 12 11 10 11 10 15 12 14 10 10 10 10 12 11 10 Less 8 5 7 6 5 9 11 0 7 10 2 3 2 7 6 Meets Needs: All 34 34 40 30 31 35 32 30 34 29 38 38 20 32 24 Most 55 58 51 54 58 59 54 54 57 58 58 61 70 53 64 :::0 Some 8 7 6 12 8 5 11 14 8 11 4 2 7 12 7 111 Ill Seldom 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 3 3 111 e: Photocopy(% Adequacy Yes) 67 80 67 55 72 67 61 77 71 64 64 77 55 68 65 n ::r Key : T = Total; B = Biology; BA = Business Administration; C = Communications; IS = Information Systems; E = Education; A = Art; FL = Foreign Languages; H = Health; L = Letters; z M = Mathematics; PS = Physical Sciences; P = Psychology; P A = Public Affairs; 55 = Social Sciences. 0 -111 Ill Q'\ Cl) 64 College & Research Libraries January 1983 termined that the pattern of residency of library users is very similar to that of the student body as a whole. Alumni users generally live within a fifteen-mile radius of the university. Users from the private-college confederation generally live within five miles of the li- brary and their own institution, while the residence of high-school students is gen- erally within ten miles of the library. Library users who have as one of their purposes general study are likely to be re- siding within fifteen miles of it. Users who intend to use it for the purpose of course assignments or term papers are more likely to commute two or more miles. Per- sonal information and leisure reading are more often indicated as the purposes of users who live beyond a five-mile com- muting distance. Daily use of the library is generally asso- ciated with those users who commute the greatest distance (at least ten miles). Less than monthly use is more likely for its pa- trons who reside within ten miles of the university. While users living beyond a ten-mile radius reported that the library tends to meet "all" their needs, those us- ers living within ten miles indicated that it is less likely to meet" all" their needs. This analysis suggests that the farther the users are located from the library, the more it is likely to meet their needs and purposes. Apparently, the library serves as a valuable resource for those located in areas that do not have alternative or ade- quate library resources. Perceptions of Library Adequacy Concerning the extent to which the ser- vices and facilities of the library generally meet users' needs, 34 percent of all re- spondents indicate that it meets ''all'' their library needs and 55 percent indicate "most" needs (see table 2). For affiliated undergraduates, 41 percent indicate that it meets "all" their needs, while 28 percent of the affiliated graduate students indicate "all." Of the private-college confedera- tion respondents, 24 percent report that it meets "all" their needs. Faculty, staff, and alumni respond that the library meets "all" their needs 13 percent, 12 percent, and 19 percent respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION The nontraditional role being filled by the library serving nontraditional stu- dents is evidenced by findings that indi- cate students, faculty, staff, and alumni are more likely to use the library for pur- poses other than books, magazines, or journals. These "other" purposes range from using the telephone, taking a nap, resting, meeting a friend, to reading the Bible. It can be estimated that up to one- fifth of the visitors do not have as their pri- mary purpose the use of library materials. Rather, they use the library as a social resource-not an academic one. It appears that books are a strong moti- vation for nonuniversity affiliated users. This heavy use suggests that the library is meeting needs that other libraries in the area cannot or do not meet. The users from the private-college confederation are particularly pleased with the services of the library. More than 50 percent of these responding private-college students visit the library weekly or daily, with 24 per- cent of them reporting that it meets ''all'' their needs. They are the most satisfied group among the library clientele. The library's unacknowledged role in promoting and facilitating leisure reading and personal research is an area of con- cern to library administrators. Faculty, staff, aQd alumni often use the library for personal research. It was found that 12 percent of all library users-especially staff and alumni-do leisure reading. Cross-classification of primary purpose of visit with major field of study indicates that humanities users are more likely to use it for personal research and leisure reading. Conversely, the more-technical areas, including physical sciences, biol- ogy, information systems, health, ac- counting, finance, mathematics, business administration, and marketing tend to use the library to study personal notes and texts. Some questions have been raised that the survey did not address. The most sa- lient of these are: (1) Why do large sub- populations of both students and faculty not make use of the library? (2) What is the pattern of materials' check-outs? and (3) What factors contribute to the use of the li- brary for nontraditional purposes? Re- sponses to the first two questions may provide the information needed to bal- ance acquisitions. Responses to the latter question may suggest similarities as well as differences in the function of libraries at urban universities compared to those in other types of institutions. Finally, public dependence and reliance on the centrally located and accessible uni- versity library indicate an important com- Research Notes 65 munity service not generally recognized or specifically funded. The unexpectedly large indication of nontraditional use sug- gests a need for more private or quiet places-either in the library itself or apart from it-where students can collect them- selves between their worlds of "work" and '·'school." Research at other urban universities indicate that such ''social space" not only may accommodate the needs of all users, but may also enhance student retention. REFERENCES 1. Rosemary Ruhig DuMont, "A Conceptual Basis for Library Effectiveness," College & Research Li- braries 41:103-11 (March 1980). 2. Ldwell A. Martin, "User Studies and Library Planning," Library Trends 24:483-96 (Jan. 1976). 3. DuMont, "A Conceptual Basis," p.103-11 . 4. Janet Kodras and James E. Prather, Profile of Library Users (Atlanta: Georgia State University, 1978). (ED 168 595). 5. Jinnie Y. Davis and Stella Bentley, "Factors Affecting Faculty Perceptions of Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 40:527-32 (Nov. 1979). 6. Kenneth Allen, "Student and Faculty Attitudes," Library College Journal 3:28-36 (Fall1970). 1~ . ~ I A . ·t· L.b . ~ ~ cqutst ton 1 rartans . . . . . t J ~~ tNootwryisthtehe time t R Sll OROERS .... receive top priority from the moment they arf' received to l : best source for: j I the time we bill and ship. Although • any book in print 'there is no di sc ount on RUSH OR- I 't • accur-tlt• invoi<·iiJ