College and Research Libraries Electronic Information Technologies and Resources: Use by University Faculty and Faculty Preferences for Related Library Services Judith A. Adams and Sharon C. Bonk With support provided by a grant from the Council on Library Resources, the SUNY University Center Libraries conducted a four-campus survey of faculty use of electronic information technologies and resources. The survey and analysis are the first such study including all academic disciplines and a broad range of faculty at several institutions joined in a consortia[ relationship. The survey's objectives were to determine the availability to faculty of equipment and network connections necessary for access to electronic information re- sources, to measure use and frequency of use of these resources, to report locations from which faculty access electronic information, and to elicit faculty perceptions of obstacles to the use of electronic technologies and library services which might stimulate use of such resources. The findings reveal that there are inequities in access to electronic technologies among the disciplines; that the most common obstacle to use of electronic information for faculty is lack of knowledge about resources; and that there is strong interest in initiating various library transactions via e-mail or a campuswide information system (CWIS) . The survey results pres~nt clear mandates related to information services, training, the · allocation of funds for networking, and access to electronic information resources for libraries. D he four graduate University Centers of the State Univer- sity of New York (Albany, Bing- hamton, Buffalo, and Stony Brook) have embarked on an ambitious initiative in cooperation and planned collection interdependence to provide faculty and students of the four sepqrate institutions with the widest range of ma- terials for their teaching and research. Because academic research libraries have witnessed a decade of declining purchasing power of the acquisitions budget and a loss of staff as well as the burgeoning ~evelopment of electronic information, the four institutions have developed both local and cooperative strategies for sustaining key programs, expanding and networking electronic information resources, and maintaining access to key research publications. SUNY CENTER LIBRARIES COOPERATIVE INITIATIVES In 1990 the directors of the four library systems adopted a policy document, Judith A. Adams is Director of the Lockwood Library of SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14250-2200. Sharon C. Bonk is Chief Librarian at the Benjamin Rosenthal Library, Queens College, Flushing, New York 11367. 119 120 College & Research Libraries "Strategic Directions for Cooperation among the SUNY University Center Li- braries," that was to shape their future efforts. 1 During 1989 I 90, the four librar- ies installed fax machines and scanning equipment as part of a cooperative Title 11-D grant to test the capacity of these technologies and a document delivery program to support expanded resource- sharing agreements. 2 In 1991 the four campuses received a cooperative plan- ning award from the Council on Library Resources (CLR).3 During the eourse of the two-year CLR grant, four studies were carried out on each campus to collect data from which access and delivery policies would be developed. Three of the studies were fo- cused on the libraries' journal collec- tions: a collection overlap study (which surprisingly revealed that approxi- mately 40 percent of the collections were unique; that is, held at only one of the Center libraries); a periodicals use study; and an interlibrary loan sur- vey (which demonstrated that 50 per- cent of our interlibrary loan needs could be satisfied by the collections of the Center libraries). The fourth study, reported here, was focused externally on faculty needs, attitudes, and expectations for li- brary and information services. The University Center library direc- tors, as coprincipal investigators for the CLR grant, created a faculty needs as- sessment study team in November 1991 to design and conduct a focused study of faculty access to electronic technologies, their use of electronic information re- sources, and their expectations for librar- ies in a resource-sharing and networked environment. The team consisted of Ju- dith Adams, director, Lockwood Library, University at Buffalo; Deborah Lines An- dersen, a doctoral candidate in Informa- tion Science at the University at Albany; Sharon Bonk, then assistant director for User Servi~es, University at Albany; Sue R. Faerman, assistant professor of Public Administration and Policy, University at Albany; and Thomas Galvin, CLR grant project research director and professor of Information Science and Policy, Uni- versity at Albany. The study team created March 1995 the survey instrument and prepared the survey for distribution on all four cam- puses during September 1992. At the time of the dissemination of the survey, fall 1992, the electronic environ- ment of the Center libraries was begin- ning to extend beyond the library walls. Each library system had an online catalog with networked dial-in access. Selected Wilson journal indexes in electronic for- mat had just become available on the online catalogs of two Center libraries. . All four Center campuses had computer networks that provided access to the In- ternet, electronic mail, and other remote electronic resources. All four Center li- braries offered access to many CD-ROM databases on computer workstations, but none of the campuses had provided distributed access to the CD-ROMs. STUDY DESIGN The study team reviewed the litera- ture of user surveys to identify models or a survey instrument that could be adapted for its use. 4 They consulted with Susan Jurow, Association of Research Li- braries Program Officer, and colleagues at Columbia University who recently had surveyed science faculty about li- brary services. They found no published report of in- vestigations with similar objectives, as- sessing user needs rather than assessing satisfaction with current services, nor an appropriate survey instrument that could be adapted. The most influential article in the design of the study was Doris Schlichter and J. Michael Pember- ton's analysis of user surveys as plan- ning tools in academic libraries.5 In this article, the authors reviewed approxi- mately twenty years of user studies and found that "despite their potential as strategic management tools, user sur- veys are rarely used to identify needed services."6 They found that "most 'use studies' reported are primarily descrip- tive snapshots of how matters stand at the moment with little apparent view toward use in future directions and plan- ning. This lack of rigorous attention to users' needs on the part of academic libraries is surprising in view of the increasing emphasis on the customer- driven characteristic of private industry."7 The study team's review concurred with that of Schlichter and Pemberton; that is, that most studies focused on user satis- faction with existing library services and that the surveys often reported conflict- ing information-high satisfaction but with low knowledge of library services. The SUNY study was designed to as- sess faculty needs for access to computer equipment, databases, electronic infor- mation resources, and materials not in the library collections. Faculty were asked to respond about their equipment, patterns of use, preferences, specific needs through choice of multiple op- tions, ranked priorities, and open-ended responses. One goal was to determine the present state of readiness of faculty to utilize electronic/networked infor- mation resources. The responses would be quantified by institution, rank, and discipline. The data could be used by each school to assess needs and address faculty comments at the discipline level so that specific actions could be taken by library administrations working with computing services professionals, by li- brary public services faculty, and by li- brary liaisons to academic departments. A key element in the design of the study · was to ensure that the data collected could be used by librarians to review existing services and to plan new or com- plementary services at each campus, as well as appropriate joint resource-shar- ing projects and services. SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS AND RESPONSE RATE The user population was all core teaching faculty, selected administra- tors and professional personnel, and clinical faculty on all four of the Uni- versity Center campuses. A total of 3,713 questionnaires were distributed on the four campuses. The final response rate for the survey was 27 percent (1,007). Within the 27 percent, the indi- vidual campus responses varied: Al- bany, 24.6 percent; Binghamton, 26.8 percent; Buffalo, 30.7 percent; and Stony Brook, 26.1 percent. Electronic Information Technologies 121 The sample population was compared with the actual populations on the four campuses with respect to rank and dis- cipline. A chi-square analysis indi- cated that the percentages of differences in the sample by rank and the popula- tion distributions across the three fac- ulty ranks were nonsignificant. A chi-square analysis of the percentages of faculty by four broad categories of disciplines (Humanities, Social Sci- ences, Sciences, and Professional Schools) was significant: Professional Schools were slightly underrepresented and Sciences slightly overrepresented. However, the study team concluded that the differentials are minimal and that the survey sample adequately rep- resents the population on the four cam- puses taken as a whole, for both rank and discipline. SURVEY INSTRUMENT The survey questionnaire was com- posed of four sections: Access to Elec- tronic Technologies and Information Services; Access to Materials; Current and Future Expectations; and Informa- tion about the respondent, including a space for open-ended comments re- garding the survey content or library services. The survey instrument was dis- tributed to each campus with a cover letter from the campus library director indicating the significance of the study, the cooperative nature of the study, and the intended plans for the results. Inter- est in the survey and its results was high on the campuses, as indicated by the large number of faculty who requested a copy of the final report. Survey Results The results of the full survey (and a copy of the survey instrument) are presented in the 1993 report, Electronic Access Technologies: A Faculty Needs As- sessment. 8 The report was distributed to the four Campus Policy Councils estab- lished as an integral element of the CLR grant activities, key grant personnel, vice presidents and provosts, chairs of the faculty senates, and the Council on Library Resources. 122 College & Research Libraries This article focuses exclusively on the section of the report of most interest and use to other academic libraries; that is, faculty access to, use of, and expecta- tions related to electronic technologies and information services. The results, conclusions, and recommendations may be helpful to other libraries as they plan for the delivery of services, information access, and instructional initiatives re- lated to electronic information. FACULTY ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES AND INFORMATION RESOURCES The section of the survey dealing with faculty access to and patterns of use of electronic information technologies served four purposes: • To survey availability to faculty of equipment and network connections necessary for access to electronic in- formation; • To measure faculty use and their fre- quency of use of information re- sources available through networks; • To report the locations from which fac- ulty access electronic information, that is, within the library o~ at remote sites such as campus office or home; and • To elicit faculty perceptions of obsta- cles to the use of electronic technolo- gies as well as to identify new services and other factors that might stimulate the use of such resources. The libraries learned that the avail- ability of personal computers appears to March 1995 be nearly universal among the SUNY Centers faculty with more than 95 per- cent of the respondents reporting that they have a computer in either their home or office. However, a significantly lower percentage of respondents reports that their office computers are connected to the campus network or that they have communications capability from their home or office. As table 1 shows, the percentage of office computers connected to the cam- pus network drops to 66.5 percent, and only 53.4 percent of faculty have com- munications modems and software for their home computers. Thus, the s'urvey reveals a need for improvement on all four campuses in regard to campus net- working and connection of home com- puters to the campus network in order to facilitate availability and use of elec- tronic resources. Overall, faculty readiness to access electronic information technologies in terms of equipment is relatively high. However, there are significant differ- ences in the availability of these re- sources among the disciplines, especially concerning equipment and connectivity in campus offices. Table 2 documents the comparative lack of computers, and espe- cially the absence of connections to the cam- pus network for the Humanities faculty as compared to faculty in the Social Sciences, Sciences, and Professional Schools. Only 55.4 percent of faculty in the Hu- manities have a personal computer in TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE OF SUNY CENTERS SURVEY RESPONDENTS WITH ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT AT OFFICE AND HOME Office Home Yes No Yes No Personal computer 84.0 15.9 80.8 18.9 Communications modem/ software 55.4 44.1 53.4 46.2 Connection to campus network 66.5 33.3 29.6 69.9 Printer 78.8 21.1 69.4 30.2 Fax machine 56.8 43.4 10.1 89.4 CD-ROM player connect to computer 9.6 90.2 2.3 97.2 Note: Percentages may not equallOO percent in cases where respondents did not answer a particular question. Electronic Information Technologies 123 TABLE2 PERCENTAGE OF FACULTY RESPONDENTS, BY DISCIPLINE, WITH ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT AT THEIR OFFICE Humanities Personal computer 55.4 Communication modem/software 29.5 Connection to campus network 34.3 Printer 46.4 Fax machine 27.7 CD-ROM player connected to computer 4.8 their offices, while nearly 85 percent of faculty in the Social Sciences and over 90 percent of faculty in the Sciences and Professional Schools have this equip- ment in their campus offices. An even greater inequity exists in terms of the availability of connections to the campus networks. In the Humanities only 34.3 percent of faculty have connections to the campus networks, yet in the Social Sciences 63.3 percent of faculty are con- nected, and in the Professional Schools and Sciences access to the campus network is generally available with respectively 71.7 percent and 84 percent of faculty con- nected to the network. Although the out- come confirms what the researchers expected, it focuses attention on the re- source problems Humanities faculty face. Today Humanities scholarship and teaching present the same urgency for access to computer technologies and electronic information resources as is necessary in other fields. The recent study, Computer Use among MLA Mem- bers sponsored by the Modern Language Association, convincingly documents that trends in Humanities scholarship and publishing make access to electronic re- sources essential for both research and teaching.9 Despite the urgent need, the effort and resources that would be re- quired to provide universal access to net- works throughout a campus is still prohibitive for many institutions, deca- nal units, or departments. The strong need of SUNY Humanities scholars for computer technologies and Social Professional Sciences Sciences Schools 84.5 91.4 91.6 51.3 71.3 58.4 63.3 84.0 71.7 80.1 87.7 86.8 56.2 62.3 65.1 6.6 14.8 11.1 network access is indicated by the large percentage of Humanities faculty who have compensated for the lack of equipment in their campus offices by purchasing computer and necessary communications equipment for their homes. As table 3 reveals, regarding equipment at home, Humanities faculty are on a par with faculty in all other disciplines. Surprisingly, a significantly higher percentage of Humanities faculty, as compared to faculty in all other disci- plines, own fax machines and CD-ROM players connected to computers. The similarity between the findings related to Humanities faculty in the SUNY Centers survey and the national survey conducted by the Modem Lan- guage Association during late 1990 and the first half of 1991 is noteworthy and tends to indicate the applicability of the findings of both surveys to other univer- sity communities. Fifty-six percent of the MLA membership responded to its sur- vey (n=16,503). Ninety percent of the MLA respondents report access to a com- puter, and 44 percent have equipment in both their office and home. More specifi- cally, 7 4 percent of the MLA respondents indicate they have a computer at home (as compared to 78.9 percent of Humani- ties faculty in the SUNY Centers survey), and 61 percent have computer access at their office (as compared to 55.4 percent of Humanities faculty in the SUNY Cen- ters survey). Regarding access to com- puter networks, 44 percent of the MLA respondents indicated they had such ac- 124 College & Research Libraries March 1995 TABLE3 PERCENTAGE OF FACULTY RESPONDENTS, BY DISCIPLINE, WITH ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT AT THEIR HOME Social Professional Humanities Sciences Sciences Schools Personal computer Communication modem/ software Connection to campus network Printer Fax machine CD-ROM player connected to computer cess, while about 10 percent fewer SUNY respondents in the Humanities said they had connection to the campus network. However, there is a sharp difference in the reported use of electronic mail, with 18.3 percent of MLA respondents report- ing such activity while 41.9 percent of SUNY Centers Humanities faculty indi- cate daily or weekly use of electronic mail.1° The approximate nine-months- to-one-year-later time frame of the SUNY Centers survey may account par- tially for this significantly larger per- centage. LEVELS AND LOCATIONS OF USE OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION RESOURCES The survey also queried faculty about the electronic information resources they presently use and how frequently they use them. Table 4 lists specific elec- tronic resources and the percentages of faculty respondents reporting various levels of frequency of use. The electronic resource presently used by the largest percentage of faculty re- spondents is the campus library online catalog. Most faculty report accessing the online catalog on a weekly or monthly basis. The next most widely used resource is electronic mail, which is utilized by nearly 75 percent of the re- spondents, and nearly half of them re- port using it on a daily basis. Electronic mail is obviously a most compelling and attractive resource for faculty. The sur- vey showed moderate use of index/ ab- stract databases loaded on the campus 78.9 82.2 82.0 81.3 45.5 56.0 59.8 52.4 31.5 33.5 31.6 26.2 71.5 74.2 62.7 71.7 17.0 10.7 3.3 11.7 4.2 1.3 2.9 1.8 library online catalog, despite quite lim- ited offerings at the time of the survey. When the survey was taken, two of the four library online catalogs offered Wil- son databases, and Medline was avail- able via local networks on two campuses. All other electronic information resources received quite low use. Online catalogs of other libraries and CD-ROM databases available at specific stations in the li- brary were used infrequently by slightly more than half of the respondents. Disci- pline-based electronic bulletin boards and listservs were used by a relatively low percentage of faculty, but the fre- quency of use by those faculty involved was quite high. Reported use of elec- tronic journals, full-text databases, and statistical databases also was quite low. Electronic networks provide oppor- tunities for use of major information resources at locations remote from li- braries-primarily offices and homes. Table 5 lists the various electronic infor- mation resources and the percentage of respondents who use these resources within the libraries or from the remote locations of office or home. Respondents could indicate use in one or both location categories. Over half of the respondents use both the library online catalog and electronic mail from their offices or homes. At the time of the survey, the SUNY University Center libraries did not provide access to other library catalogs via either their on- line catalogs or a campuswide informa- tion system (CWIS). Many respondents indicating use of other libraries' online Electronic Information Technologies 125 TABLE4 FREQUENCY OF USE OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION RESOURCES, PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING EACH LEVEL OF USE Information Resource Daily Weekly Monthly Infrequently Never Campus library online catalog 12.4 38.6 25.3 14.2 7.7 Other libraries' online catalogs 1.6 7.4 13.4 28.4 47.0 Index/ abstract databases on campus online catalog 2.9 15.1 20.6 29.3 29.4 Index/ abstract databases via commercial vendor 1.3 6.0 6.5 15.6 68.4 Discipline-based electronic bulletin boards, listservs 13.0 7.6 4.4 13.4 58.9 Electronic journals, newsletters 3.3 6.8 4.0 14.7 68.0 Electronic mail 48.1 11.3 3.0 9.8 25.8 Full-text electronic databases 1.6 3.1 2.1 9.4 80.5 Statistical databases .8 2.1 2.6 11.5 80.3 CD-ROM index/ abstract databases in library 2.6 10.0 17.1 21.4 46.6 TABLES LOCATION OF USE OF ELECTRONIC RESOURCES, PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING THEY USE THE RESOURCE AT EACH LOCATION Information Resource At Library At Office/Home Campus library online catalog Other libraries' online catalog Index/ abstract databases on campus online catalog Index/ abstract databases via commercial vendor Discipline-based electronic bulletin boards, listservs Electronic journals, newsletters Electronic mail Full-text electronic databases Statistical databases CD-ROM index/ abstract data- bases available in library catalogs from the library locations prob- ably were referring to mediated use of the OCLC or RUN bibliographic utili- ties. Also at the time of the survey, the SUNY University Center libraries did not provide computer stations for pub- lic access to electronic mail, electronic journals, or commercial index/ ab- stract databases. Faculty indicating 71.2 34.1 52.8 17.3 9.7 7.8 17.3 9.3 8.6 43.8 51.1 22.2 21.8 13.3 31.2 23.4 60.6 10.1 10.2 6.3 use of such resources within the library were probably referring to medi- ated use with a librarian of commercial databases, searching Medline in the Health Sciences or Science libraries, and possibly use of networked resources such as electronic mail, listservs, and electronic journals at university micro- computer centers. 126 College & Research Libraries Analysis of responses tabulated by discipline and rank reveals some signifi- cant deviations from the aggregate re- sults. Specifically, 10 percent to 20 percent more Humanities faculty report daily or weekly use of online catalogs of both local libraries and distant libraries than do their colleagues in other disci- plines. Science faculty use the online catalogs the least of the disciplinary groups. Daily or weekly use of online catalogs as well as index/ abstract data- bases mounted on the online catalog is in inverse correlation to rank; that is, the percentage of assistant professors who frequently use the catalog and especially index/ abstract databases is between 10 and 15 percentage points higher than their full professor colleagues. Signifi- cantly more Science faculty use electronic listservs, bulletin boards, electronic jour- nals, and electronic mail on a frequent basis than do faculty in other disciplines (ranging between 8 to 15 percentage points higher for Science faculty). PERCEIVED OBSTACLES TO USE OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES The survey listed seven possible obstacles to faculty use of electronic resources and technologies and also pro- vided an 11 other" category with the oppor- tunity for respondents to write in additional obstacles. Table 6 lists the vari- March 1995 ous possible obstacles and the percent- age of respondents in each discipline in- dicating applicability of each obstacle. Respondents were asked to indicate all obstacles they considered relevant. Somewhat counter to expectations, the greatest obstacles perceived by fac- ulty are lack of information about spe- cific databases and lack of training. Considering the fiscal austerity that has characterized SUNY in recent years, it is surprising that lack of funds ranked a clear third significantly behind the other two, followed by the lack of hardware and software. There were no consistent responses in the open-ended 11 other" category of this question. The survey followed the question on obstacles with a list of factors that might facilitate or increase use of electronic technologies and systems. Table 7 shows that across the disciplines information about databases and training in use of electronic mail and networks are the ma- jor factors that would stimulate use. Hu- manities faculty rank connections to networks and availability of equipment much higher than do the other disci- plines. Disciplinary trends requiring the use of electronic technologies and re- sources seem to have established them- selves prior to the time of the survey and were not a continuing factor exerting pressure on faculty to increase use of electronic resources. TABLE 6 OBSTACLES TO USE OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES BY DISCIPLINE, PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING OBSTACLE IS APPLICALBE Social Professional Humanities Sciences Sciences Schools Total Lack hardware 41.0 27.9 13.1 24.6 25.6 Lack software 36.7 25.7 13.9 22.2 23.5 Lack training 59.0 53.1 32.8 49.9 48.5 Lack information on databases 60.2 73.0 60.2 54.2 61.5 Lack operating funds 44.0 44.7 41.4 35.3 40.7 Lack interest or need 12.7 9.7 15.2 7.8 11.0 Lack time 24.1 22.1 26.2 32.0 26.6 Other 12.7 8.4 6.1 6.6 7.8 Electronic Information Technologies 127 TABL~7 FACTORS THAT MIGHT INCREASE USE OF ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES/SERVICES BY DISCIPLINE, PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING FACTOR IS APPLICABLE Social Professional Humanities Sciences Sciences Schools Total Computer equipment in office/home 50.6 24.8 12.3 26.0 26.6 Connection to campus network 50.6 31.4 15.2 29.3 30.1 Access to data via campus network 51.8 40.3 26.6 39.2 38.9 Information about databases/ resources 64.5 69.9 64.4 61.7 65.5 Training in use of equipment 41.0 35.0 20.1 36.8 33.1 Training in use of e-mail, networks 47.0 52.2 34.0 51.2 47.0 Funding 41.0 36.3 37.7 33.8 36.4 Disciplinary trends or requirements 14.5 5.3 11.9 10.8 10.5 Other 8.4 4.4 4.9 6.3 6.0 TABLES TYPES OF TRAINING PREFERRED BY FACULTY IN EACH DISCIPLINE, PERCENTAGE OF FACULTY INDICATING PREFERENCE FOR EACH TYPE Humanities Small group class/workshop 50.6 Printed manuals 42.2 Formal classes 6.0 One-on-one tutorials 39.2 Telephone assistance 41.0 Online tutorials 31.9 Assistance via e-mail 17.5 The survey results clearly indicate a need that libraries are uniquely posi- tioned to develop and offer: services and electronic or print publications that pro- vide ongoing effective information on specific databases and other electronic resources. Faculty training does not ap- pear to be amenable to a single methodol- ogy since faculty in the various disciplines demonstrate noteworthy training prefer- ences. However, as documented in table 8, formal classes are regarded by faculty in all disciplines as the least attractive training mode. There is a consistent pref- erence evident for small-group classes or Professional Social Sciences Sciences Schools 51.8 35.7 61.1 57.5 63.1 51.5 . 5.3 4.1 6.3 29.2 15.6 26.3 34.1 24.2 29.3 35.0 37.7 41.6 26.1 31.1 20.7 workshops and printed manuals. A merger of workshops with printed docu- mentation may be the most effective model. EXPECTATIONS AND PREFERENCES FOR LIBRARY SERVICES IN A NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT Survey respondents were asked sev- eral questions related to their prefer- ences and/ or expectations for library services and access to resources in a net- worked environment. One open-ended question asked respondents to list any 128 College & Research Libraries March 1995 TABLE9 DESIRED LIBRARY TRANSACTIONS THAT COULD BE INITIATED BY COMPUTER FROM HOME OR OFFICE (Including Highest Priority) Reference ILL Questions Total 74.2 54.2 Humanities 77.7 59.6 Social sciences 82.7 59.3 Sciences 64.3 41.4 Professional schools 75.7 56.6 electronic databases, CO-ROMs, or elec- tronic journals/newsletters that they would like to use but to which they cur- rently do not have access or adequate funding to support access. A common response to this question is typified by the following: "I don't know what to answer because I don't know what is available. Give me more information." Responses such as this reflect and accen- tuate the urgent need for information and user training. If the number of fac- ulty requesting LEXIS and NEXIS are merged, LEXIS/NEXIS emerges as the most desired database. This is not sur- prising given the size and range of this resource as well as its provision of the full text of most materials. Current Con- tents is in second place. It is interesting that some low- or no-cost items already available appear as desired items, such as DIALOG, MLA, RUN, and the U.S. Census data. The findings confirm lack of knowledge about current services and resources. However, the responses may also indicate that faculty prefer access to these databases via networks rather than using dedicated computer stations in libraries. Overall, the list of desired da- tabases reveals no surprises to the librari- ans. It does provide documentation, however, of the electronic systems of which faculty are aware and that they presently think would be useful to them. The strong interest faculty indicate re- garding library transactions they would like to initiate via computer from their home or office is a good indication of the potential satisfaction and level of use of such services, if offered. Electronic mail Renew/ Document High Recall Delivery Reserve Priority 67.1 47.1 50.9 ILL 72.3 43.4 60.2 RENEW 77.0 49.1 64.2 ILL 58.6 41.0 41.0 ILL 65.3 52.1 46.4 ILL and/ or a campuswide information sys- tem (CWIS) are the likely mediums for conducting such transactions. Faculty were given five kinds of library transac- tions plus an open-ended "other" option and they were asked to indicate all options they would like to initiate by computer and also to "star" their highest priority transaction. The five options given were "interlibrary loan requests," "reference questions, information queries," "renew- als and recalls of library materials," "docu- ment delivery to my office," "requesting materials to be placed on reserve." Table 9 provides the percentages of faculty indi- cating a desire for each option. The last column notes the most frequent "highest priority" response. It is immediately evident that large percentages of faculty desire the ability to initiate most of these transactions via computer from their home or office. In- terlibrary loan clearly emerges as the highest priority, with renewals and re- calls closely following. Reference ques- tions and placing materials on reserve are about equal in demand as third choices. Currently, the option of docu- ment delivery is the least desired, but it is still mentioned by approximately 50 percent of the respondents. MANDATES FOR LIBRARIES AND SUNY RESPONSES TO SURVEY FINDINGS The survey findings present five clear mandates for libraries planning and in- itiating new or reconfigured services, systems, and organizational structures in a networked information environ- ment. These mandates are presented as follows, accompanied by brief indica- tions of initiatives and programs devel- oped since the survey was disseminated by the SUNY Center libraries or through collaboration between the libraries and computing centers. • The most common obstacle to the use of electronic information resources re- ported by faculty is a lack of knowl- edge about what is available. Libraries can respond to this need with rela- tively moderate resources. Libraries should develop services and publications (electronic and/or print) to provide ongoing effective information on specific databases and other elec- tronic resources. The libraries on one of the SUNY Center campuses now publish a regular column, titled "Electronic Highways," in the weekly faculty cam- pus newspaper and a similar column in the Computer Center newsletter. Each column focuses on one electronic infor- mation resource or system and provides basic information and access procedures with the suggestion to contact specific library personnel for more detailed in- formation and assistance. All of the cam- puses have campuswide information systems (CWIS) and/ or gopher systems which point to and provide automatic connection to the catalogs of other librar- ies, electronic journals, and other elec- tronic information resources. Two of the Center libraries produce an "Electric Li- brary" newsletter. 11 Some of the libraries are including records in the online cata- logs for electronic resources not owned by the library, but available via the In- ternet. Two campus libraries have Internet resource workstations for public use. The libraries on all four campuses offer In- ternet instructional classes and integrate Internet resources in subject-related in- structional programs. All of the libraries prepare guides to Internet resources and integrate electronic information resources in subject-oriented guides. • User training is considered by faculty to be a high-priority need. Libraries should integrate a variety of training options within their existing instruc- tional programs and also collaborate Electronic Information Technologies 129 with the campus computer center in the development of widely available training on systems such as e-mail and file transfer protocols. Faculty indicate that their use of elec- tronic information resources and tech- nologies would be increased by instruction or training in the use of elec- tronic mail, networks and networked re- sources, and online databases. There are noteworthy training preferences among faculty in the various disciplines. A merger of workshops and printed manu- als/materials may be the most effective common model. Because of the universal need for training on certain systems, such as e-mail, libraries should work with computer centers to develop train- ing modules that can be offered to all students and faculty. Various types of training programs have been developed and offered by the SUNY Center libraries. One library pre- pared a multiday Internet training course open to all campus faculty and administrative personnel. Another li- brary has developed six -session Internet "clinics" for faculty and students. Li- brarians have integrated access to In- ternet resources, especially electronic journals and discussion lists, into many subject-related instructional classes. • Faculty readiness, in terms of neces- sary equipment and interest, to access electronic information resources is al- most universal. In addition, level of use of available electronic resources is quite high and growing. Libraries should allocate funds for networking of electronic resources and, where possi- ble, initiate consortia! arrangements to share the costs of networking. High levels of use of library online catalogs and online index/ abstract data- bases loaded on the catalog indicate that these resources are good targets for continued expansion and expenditure of increasingly scarce funds. Shared con- sortia! programs for the joint licensing and networking of targeted databases may be a viable means to lower costs for each institution. The online catalog systems of three of the SUNY Center libraries have been 130 College & Research Libraries linked via NOTIS' PACLink system. The SUNY Express service now provides document delivery of journal articles among the four Center libraries via ARIEL within two days, and a twenty- four-hour turnaround time is often achieved. ARIEL is also used to transmit requests for materials among the Cen- ters. Thus, national bibliographic utili- ties are bypassed. Student assistants can perform more functions because knowl- edge of only the local campus system is required. Another cooperative grant funded by the Council on Library Re- sources and SUNY will assess the cost effectivel)ess of consortia! and commer- cial document supply. The Centers also have embarked on ambitious database licensing and net- work arrangements. Several of the data- bases most frequently mentioned by faculty have been targets for joint licens- ing and networking. As of spring 1994, ABI/Inform, Psychlit, Wilson databases, Dissertation Abstracts, and Quakeline have each been loaded at one of the Cen- ters and are available for searching on the online catalog systems at three of the Centers. In addition, CUNY has loaded Newspaper Abstracts and it is available at the SUNY Centers. A grant from the SUNY Central administration is sup- porting another project to load a num- ber of databases at various locations and make them available at several SUNY college campuses via the online catalogs. One campus "shares" the Cur- rent Contents database with another non- SUNY local institution. These projects will demonstrate the viability of consor- tia! networking arrangements, as well as demand-load and response time performance. It is hoped that these in- itial projects will be successful, and that they can be expanded to encom- pass the thirty-two SUNY college cam- puses, most of which now have online catalog systems. • Faculty indicate the attractiveness of electronic man as a mode of commu- nication and their strong desire to initiate various library functions/serv- ices by this medium. Libraries should offer a variety of services to the aca- March.1995 demic community via e-mail or other computer systems. The large percentage of faculty across the disciplines who use e-mail and their high frequency of use make this medium an optimum service venue. The estab- lishment and widespread availability of such services should be a high priority for most academic libraries. The ability to initiate interlibrary loan transactions via e-mail or other computer systems may encourage faculty and students to use ILL more frequently to secure needed materials and, perhaps, to more readily accept a philosophy of resource sharing and access instead of ownership. By the end of 1993, three of the Center library systems were offering some elec- tronic mail services, including reference queries, interlibrary loan requests, and renewal transactions. The level of refer- ence queries via e-mail remains quite low and presents only a minimal de- mand on reference staff. To date, the level of interlibrary loan and renewal requests transacted via e-mail is high and steady. • Campuses must provide universal ac- cess to campus computer networks for the campus community. Everyone should have access to networked elec- tronic resources because such resources are now central to all disciplines and research. Universal access is also neces- sary to justify significant ·resource al- location to networking and electronic resources. Libraries should use the findings of surveys such as this one as well as the needs of their campus com- munity to lobby for universal access to networks on the campus. The SUNY Center libraries have com- municated the survey results to campus administrators, faculty senates, deans, and departments. The documented in- equities in computer network accessibil- ity among the various disciplines have been cited effectively to establish pri- orities for connecting faculty offices in certain departments to the campus net- works. The survey findings also have been transmitted to the SUNY Central Administration to bolster proposals re- lated to the joint networking initiatives of the four Centers and beyond to addi- tional SUNY institutions. The SUNY experience clearly indi- cates that other institutions would find it well worth the time and cost to con- duct a survey of user needs and expecta- tions. Although other campuses may not have grant funds to cover all the costs, the resources required for such a survey are generally available on campuses. Faculty with expertise in survey research can ad- vise on survey design and coding. The librarians at the four SUNY Uni- versity Centers have found the survey process and data gathered invaluable in focusing scarce personnel and acquisi- tions resources on efforts that have al- ready reshaped and will continue to Electronic Information Technologies 131 affect the direction of new services. The survey data have been useful in discus- sions and planning of both public and technical services units of the four librar- ies, in planning with campus computing staff, and in administrative decisions about campus resource allocations. Sur- vey findings have also bolstered propos- als to the SUNY Central Administration related to SUNY networking initiatives. In addition, at individual campuses, the data have been used in the preparation of grant applications for faculty devel- opment programs in the Humanities. The authors commend a needs analysis as a key tool in selecting among the many options for refining library net- work-based services. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. SUNY University Center Libraries, Strategic Directions for Cooperation among the SUNY University Center Libraries (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Stony Brook, N.Y.: SUNY Univ. Center Libraries, 1990). 2. Stephen Roberts, Robert Bertholf, and Richard Lesniak, Faxing or Scanning: Exploring Options for Research Libraries. Final Report, Title II-D Grant (Buffalo, N.Y.: University Libraries, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Oct. 1992). 3. SUNY University Center Libraries, Policy Issues in Cooperative Collection Development and Resources Sharing. Final Report to the Council on Library Resources (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Stony Brook, N.Y.: SUNY Univ. Center Libraries, July 1993). 4. Several texts on survey research for libraries contributed to the conceptual formulation of the instrument. Nancy Van House, Beth Weil, and Charles McClure, Measuring Academic Library Performance (Chicago: ALA, 1990); Peter Hernon and Charles McClure, Evaluation and Library Decision Making (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1990); Charles McClure and Peter Hernon, Library and Information Science Research (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1991). 5. Doris J. Schlichter and J. Michael Pemberton, "The Emperor's New Clothes? Problems of the User Survey as a Planning Tool in Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 53 (May 1992): 257-65. 6. Ibid., 257. 7. Ibid., 258. 8. Judith A. Adams, Deborah Lines Andersen, Sharon C. Bonk, Sue R. Faerman, and Thomas J. Galvin, Electronic Access Technologies: A Faculty Needs Assessment (SUNY Univ. Center Libraries, May 1993). Includes copy of survey instrument. The report has been sent to the ERIC Clearinghouse for wider distribution to the library community. 9. Bettina J. Huber, Computer Use among MLA Members: Selected Findings from the 1990 Membership Survey (New York: Modern Language Assn. of America, 1993). 10. Ibid., 5, 8-9, tables 2-5. 11. "Electronic Highways" is published in The Reporter (SUNY at Buffalo), edited by Gemma DeVinney and Loss Pequeno Glazier. The Electronic Library newsletter is published by the SUNY Albany Libraries, and UB Connected is published by the SUNY Buffalo Libraries. The State A of the rt smart Leaders in the Information Industry providing subscription services, article delivery and library automation software. • REMO Mouse driven serials management system. • Ross Online ordering, claiming and searching of journal and publisher databases. • Renewal Express PC-based system to analyze current serials holdings and plan for the future collection development. • Financial Planner Lotus format- ted worksheet to analyze previous spending history and plan future budget allocations. • UnCover The fastest most compre- . hensive service for fax delivery of journal articles available today. • BACKSERV An Internet list devoted to the informal exchange of serial back issues among libraries. READMORE ACADEMIC SERVICES 700 Black Horse Pike, Suite 207 Blackwood, NJ 08012 Phone: l-800-645-6595 . Fax:609-227-8322