College and Research Libraries Research Notes An Approach to Assessing Faculty Use of Locally Loaded Databases Joan B. Fiscella and Edward Proctor A survey was used to study faculty use of, preferences for, and satisfac- tion with either the SPIRES/Prism or the BAS MENTOR interfaces for locally loaded Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). The findings showed no significant difference in faculty preferences for one or the other interface; however, faculty use of locally loaded databases was associated with having a campus computer account. The study also looked at use of other locally loaded databases by faculty in educa- tion and other social science disciplines. The limitations of the survey are addressed. tudies of online database use have shown that faculty have given a mixed reception to such resources; although some are taking advantage of mediated search services or doing their own searching of vendor-supplied, locally loaded, or CD- ROM databases, others are reluctant to use them. Among the factors identified as contributing to faculty use (or lack of use) are the content of the databases, the ease of end-user systems, the availability of computers, and faculty characteristics such as discipline-affiliation or age. While reluctance was to be expected when databases first became widely available, it seemed likely that, over time, either growing familiarity with the tech- nology, the development of electronic sources in all disciplines, or better inter- faces would lead to greater acceptance. The research, however, has not shown a clear trend toward progressively greater use; instead, the results are mixed. 14 Fur- ther studies testing disciplinary affiliation as one likely explanation for the uneven pattern of use yielded mixed results re- garding use by faculty in the sciences and Joan B. Fiscella is Bibliographer for Professional Studies in the Collections Development Department at the University of fllinois at Chicago (UIC) Library, P.O. Box 8198, M/C234, Chicago, IL 60680. Edward Proctor is Assistant Reference Librarian in the Reference Department at the UIC Library. The authors would like to thank Marta Kuszczak, now Government Documents and Maps Reference Bibliographer at Dartmouth College, for her participation in the SPIRES/ERIC task force and survey of the faculty . We designed the survey questionnaire with assistance from Timothy Johnson of the University Office of Survey Research, a consulting service available to UIC faculty upon request; we also wish to thank him for his help with statistics. In addition , we would like to thank our colleagues Ann Weller and Stephen Wiberley for their helpful comments and suggestions about the paper, Nancy John for historical informa- tion, and Nancy Sack for reviewing the tables. 446 the humanities.5'6 Because high costs may deter use, many libraries began licensing databases for patrons to use without charge. Yet the ready availability of locally loaded or no-cost commercial systems has not necessarily prompted frequent end- user searching by faculty_7,s Since the late 1970s better system de- signs and more extensive training have been proposed as ways to encourage fac- ulty to use electronic systems.9-11 Studies testing the efficacy of front-ends have begun. For instance, Michael Sullivan, Christine Borgman, and Dorothy Wip- pern compared the performance of doc- toral students using a command-driven system with those using a menu system.U They found that, although those who used the menu-driven approach inter- acted less with the system than did those who used the command mode, both groups did equally well in measures of performance. The availability of two software inter- faces for the Educational Resources Infor- mation Center (ERIC) database at the Uni- versity of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) pro- vided an unusual opportunity to exam- ine faculty use of this locally loaded re- source and faculty response to the two front-ends. A study of faculty responses to the databases could serve as a baseline against which to measure change in the rate of use and level of satisfaction. A comparison of faculty preferences for one or the other interface would suggest which features were most important to them and serve as a guide to choosing interfaces for other databases. Related questions could be addressed. Do faculty in some disciplines use locally loaded da- tabases more than those in others? Are there any identifiable characteristics com- mon to those who frequently search elec- tronic databases, as compared to those who do not? Are those who search a single database, in this case ERIC, also likely to look at other bibliographic databases? In this paper the authors show the re- sults of using a survey instrument to Locally Loaded Databases 447 gather data on faculty preferences for one or the other software and to assess their use of the locally loaded ERIC databases. We will outline the differences in the two database interfaces and report on faculty use of ERIC, and their preference for, or satisfaction with, one or the other inter- face for the locally loaded databases. We will also outline the use of other databases by this same group of faculty. SPIRES/I;RIC and BAS/ERIC Since 1987, the UIC Library had been looking for ways to provide article cita- tion databases via the mainframe and the campus network in order to avoid exten- sive investment in CD-ROM technology. Because the campus Computer Center had mounted on the mainframe Stan- ford's SPIRES database manager with the Yet the ready availability of locally loaded or no-cost commercial systems has not necessarily prompted frequent end-user searching by faculty. Prism interface, the library was able to use loaders that Syracuse University had de- veloped for ERIC and was distributing to SPIRES users. Only a small financial in- vestment was needed for the ERIC data. During this time, the University of Illi- nois Central Administration decided to fund the acquisition of BRS for the librar- ies. BRS' OnSite program used ready-to- load data, and the libraries chose ERIC (because of its high use and relatively low cost), H.W. Wilson Company databases, and Current Contents . Because long-term funding for BRS by the university was not assured, the UIC Library administration chose to continue to support the SPIRES version of ERIC as well. Both ERIC databases are searchable on terminals in all library sites, on net- worked campus computers, or by remote access using office or home personal com- puters by faculty, staff, and students with 448 College & Research Libraries campus computer-Academic Data Net- work (ADN)-accounts. Both were an- nounced through notes in campus news- papers, in newsletters sent to faculty, in orientation and instruction sessions, and through activities in celebration of the remodeling of the Main Library. Thus the UIC Library has made avail- able to its users two ERIC databases, loaded on different computers and run with different software. The SPIRES/ Prism ERIC database became available in late summer 1991; the BRS version in September 1995 October of the same year. That both data- bases became available within three months of each other was a result of the timing of development activities: writing the help screens and user documentation for the databases, customizing the MEN- TOR interface for the BRS software, and loading the databases on the campus computer (SPIRES /Prism version) and the university computer (BRS version). For purposes of this paper, the former ver- sion of ERIC will be called SPIRES/ERIC; the latter, BRS/ERIC. TABLEt Comparison of Selected Features of SPIRES/ERIC and BRSIERIC Feature Searching Keyword Refining searches Word adjacency Descriptors/Identifiers Displaying Record format Screen format Select fields Manipulating Results Review search history Combine sets Sort/Print/Electronic Transfer Access Library menu Lib. terminals/Campus computers/Dial-in SPIRES/ERIC Specified field only Default: AND, within field Not available Keyword Brief/Full Up to 16 single iipes, date and title/brief Single record/full BRS/ERIC In any field; use of suffix delimiters Default: WITH Available Indexed phrases Short/Medium/Long No more than a single record per screen In customized "report" format User selected fields Not available AND, OR, NOT with current set Available 1st level Yes Available AND, OR, NOT with any available sets Available 2nd level, behind IDIS Yes Comparison of Interfaces The two interfaces differ in ways of searching the database and in displaying and manipulating the results, as indicated in table 1. Two examples illustrate the difference in practice: the proto- cols available to limit search re- sults and the types of display of retrieved citations. SPIRES/ en ERIC helps the searcher limit § results by requiring the designa- tion of fields to be searched (e.g., title or author). BRS/ERIC, con- versely, aids precise searching by allowing word adjacency (e.g., new adj math), descriptor or identifier phrases (instead of individual words), and key words within a field by suffixes (e.g., multicultural.ti.). Using BRS/ERIC, the searcher has more flexibility in searching and altering a search in progress. The displays differ as well (see figure 1). The SPIRES/ERIC brief display format yields a list of dates and titles, useful for browsing titles. In contrast, the briefest BRS/ERIC format is the short citation, including major descriptors, one citation to a ~ screen. Thus, SPIRES/ERIC ;f builds in a constraint potentially useful to beginning searchers, and it provides title browsing lists. In contrast, BRS/ERIC of- fers more options (and thus flex- ibility) for the user to modify the search request as needed. Locally Loaded Databases 449 ~ ;:I OJ) Both interfaces offer consis- tency among related databases. The SPIRES/ERIC interface is similar to other applications of ~------------------------------------~~ SPIRES /Prism, such as resumes or local information databases, available to cam- pus users. In aid of this consistency, no reprogramming was possible for types of search parameters, like title or author, nor search screen displays. In contrast, the BRS MENTOR interface customized by VIC li- brarians provided a level of consistency among the selected databases, grouped under the name IBIS (Illinois Biblio- graphic Information Service), and some similarity with the functions of the NOTIS I 450 College & Research Libraries LUIS online catalog in use at UIC. 13,14 Thus users of online UIC Library resources could search almost all local bibliographic databases with similar protocols. Study We surveyed faculty in disciplines whose literature is covered by ERIC--education, kinesiology, psychology, social work, and women's studies-to learn who used ERIC online. We asked the online users which interface they used or preferred; if they used only one interface, we asked about their satisfaction with it. In addi- tion, we asked about the faculty's use of selected Current Contents and H.W. Wil- son Company's index .databases, which were also available as part of IBIS. The university's Institutional Review Board, which reviews human subjects research, approved the research proposal. The instrument was pretested by faculty and reference librarians whose responses identified areas needing clarification. In September 1992 the authors mailed the survey to 148 faculty: 65 in education, 37 in psychology, 30 in social work, 16 in kinesiology, and three in women's stud- ies. Our cover letter introduced the sur- vey, assured the faculty member of ano- nymity, and requested cooperation. In De- cember we sent a second copy of the sur- vey to those who had not yet responded. Results Eighty-one faculty members (54.7%) re- turned the survey: 30 (46.1 %) in educa- tion, 22 (59.4%) in psychology, 17 (56.6%) in social work, 9 (56.2%) in kinesiology, and 3 (100%) in women's studies. The faculty indicated the frequency, by semes- ter, of their use of ERIC in any form, in- cluding electronic or print versions of Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE) or Research in Education (RIE). No statistically significant difference was found among the departments; nor was any significant difference in frequency of use found when comparing the education faculty with all other disciplines com- September 1995 bined. Furthermore, no statistically sig- nificant difference was found when com- paring the use of each form of ERIC (CIJE or RIE in print, locally loaded ERIC, li- brarian-mediated search, or CD-ROM) by discipline. The lack of significant differ- ences for both frequency and form of use lent credence to the original assumption that the selected disciplines would be an appropriate population to test for the use of the electronic versions of ERIC. ERIC Online: Use, Preference, and Satisfaction We designed one set of questions to dis- cover the extent to which faculty were using the online ERIC resources and which of the two ·ERIC interfaces faculty users preferred. Of the 81 respondents, 24 (29.6%) said they had used ERIC on- line; of these 24, only seven (29.2%) said they had used both SPIRES/ERIC and BRS/ERIC, nine (37.5%) had used only BRS/ERIC, one (4.2 %) had used only SPIRES/ERIC, and seven (29.2%) were not sure which of the two interfaces they had used. The seven who had used both inter- faces were asked to indicate their prefer- ence by interface function (author and subject searching, combining sets, dis- playing and sorting results, creating re- ports, printing, and sending results elec- tronically, as well as overall ease of use), and for getting in and out of the database. Six faculty responded, and the majority of these expressed no preference for ei- ther interface, for any of the functions. When respondents indicated preference, they tended to choose BRS/ERIC over SPIRES/ERIC for most functions. Because so few respondents indicated they had used both versions of ERIC, we cannot draw any conclusions applicable to a larger population. Respondents who had used one or the other ERIC database (but not both) were asked for their satisfaction level with the interface functions. Seventeen faculty pro- vided usable responses; nine had used Locally Loaded Databases 451 BRS/ERIC, one had used SPIRES/ERIC, combined "very satisfied" and "fairly and seven were unsure which program satisfied" responses into "satisfied" and they had used. Table 2 shows the com- combined "not very satisfied" and "not parison of satisfaction by interface. We at all satisfied" into "not satisfied." TABLE2 Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings, Including Non-Use, for System Functions, by Interface, N=17 Satisfaction Ratings Function Interface Satisfied Not Satisfied Never Used No Answer Author searching BRSIERIC 7 77.8% 1 11.1% 0 0 1 11.1% SPIRES/ERIC 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System-unknown 6 85 .7 0 0 1 14.3 0 0 Subject searching BRSIERIC 5 55.6 3 33.3 0 0 I 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System-unknown 6 85.7 14.3 0 0 0 0 Combining sets BRSIERIC 5 55.6 2 22.2 I 11.1 1 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System-unknown 4 57.1 0 0 3 . 42.9 0 0 Displaying results BRSIERIC 7 77.8 1 11.1 0 0 1 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System-unknown 5 71.4 2 28.6 0 0 0 0 Sorting results BRSIERIC 3 33 .3 1 ·11.1 4 44.4 1 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System-unknown 2 28 .6 1 14.3 4 57 .1 0 0 Creating reports BRS!ERIC 2 22.2 0 0 6 66.7 1 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 System-unknown 2 28.6 14.3 4 57.1 0 0 Printing BRSIERIC 6 66 .7 0 0 2 22 .2 I 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System-unknown 5 71.4 0 0 2 28 .6 0 0 Sending results BRSIERIC 2 22.2 0 0 4 44.4 3 33 .3 electronically SPIRES/ERIC 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System-unknown 0 0 2 28.6 5 71.4 0 0 Ease of use BRSIERIC 7 77.8 1 11.1 N.A. 1 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 1 100.0 0 0 N.A. 0 0 System-unknown 5 71.4 2 28 .6 N.A. 0 0 Getting in BRSIERIC 6 66.7 2 22.2 N.A. 1 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 1 100.0 0 0 N.A. 0 0 System-unknown 6 85 .7 1 14.3 N.A. 0 0 Getting out BRSIERIC 5 55 .6 3 33.3 N.A. 1 11.1 SPIRES/ERIC 1 100.0 0 0 N.A. 0 0 System-unknown 5 71.4 2 28 .6 N.A. 0 0 452 College & Research Libraries The majority of respondents who had used each function were satisfied with the function. The one respondent who re- ported using SPIRES /ERIC indicated sat- isfaction with all functions except for "re- porting." One respondent using BRS/ ERIC answered none of the questions about its functions. Of the remaining BRS/ERIC respondents, more indicated satisfaction than dissatisfaction with all functions used. Three respondents indi- cated they were not satisfied with subject searching, and three were dissatisfied with the method of exiting the BRS/ERIC database. Of the respondents who did not know which of the two interfaces they had used, most also indicated satisfaction with the functions they had used, except for sending the results electronically. Table 2 shows that a number of these faculty made no use of several available functions, in contrast with the faculty who used both interfaces. Although the reporting-SPIRES /ERIC user was famil- iar with all functions listed, BRS /ERIC or system-unknown reporters indicated that they had never used the functions of cre- ating reports (1 0), electronically sending September 1995 results (9), sorting results (8), combining sets (4), or printing results (4). Searching by author or subject and displaying the results appear to be basic functions. For further analysis, all81 respondents were divided into two subgroups accord- ing to whether or not they had used Uni- versity of Illinois locally loaded ERIC. The first subgroup consisted of 24 faculty who had used locally loaded ERIC; the second consisted of the remaining 57 faculty, in- cluding those who did not answer the question, as well as those who responded that they had not used locally loaded ERIC. Data were compared using the de- mographic factors of discipline affiliation, number of years at VIC, rank, age, and gender. Because personal computers or terminals are not uniformly available on campus, we also compared data for points of access to campus computing systems. Comparing the two subgroups by dis- ciplinary affiliation, the faculty of educa- tion were evenly divided between those who used and those who did not report using the local ERIC; in each of the other disciplines, fewer than 25 percent of the faculty reported using the local ERIC. Of TABLE3 Comparison of the Users and Nonusers of Locally Loaded ERIC by Discipline and by Academic Rank, N=81 Education Kinesiology P sychology Social Work Women 's Studies N=30 N=9 N=22 N=17 N=3 ( 100%) (100%) ( 100%) (100%) (100%) Used local ERIC 15 50.0% 1 11.1 % 4 18.2% 4 23.5 % 0 0 P<.04 Prof. Assoc. Asst. Visit. Ad jet. Other Prof. Prof. Prof. Prof. N=26 N=20 N= 19 N=6 N=1 N=9 ( 100%) (100%) (1 00%) (1 00 %) ( 100%) (1 00 %) Used local ERIC 4 15.4% 5 25.0% 11 57 .9% 3 50.0% 0 0 1 11. 1% P<.03 Locally Loaded Databases 453 TABLE4 Comparison of the Users and Non-users of Locally Loaded ERIC by Access to ADN, N=Sl ADN Point of Access have ADN acct. * office dept. unit/bldg. home N=79 N=71 N=67 N=65 N=65 Used local ERIC 18/24 11/21 16/22 12/18 8/20 75.0% 52.4% 72.7% 66.7% 40.0% Did not use local ERIC 26/55 25/50 31/45 30/47 13/45 47.3% 50.0% 68.9% 63.8% 28.9% *P <.06 (Numerators refer to numbers of respondents answering ADN questions. Denominators refer to numbers answering the questions, among the respondents using or not using locally loaded ERIC.) the remaining demographic factors, only rank showed a statistically significant dif- ference (p = <.03, Pearson's). (See table 3.) Eleven (57.9%) assistant professors, and three (50.0%) visiting professors had used the locally-loaded ERIC, while 26 percent or fewer of the other ranks had done so. Although the higher percentage of assistant professors would indicate that relatively younger faculty used the local ERIC more frequently than did older faculty, the comparison of the two subgroups by age in five-year ranges showed no statistical significance. How- , ever, in the faculty group aged ~34 years and in the group aged 35-39 years, there was a 50%-50% split between those who used the locally loaded ERIC and those who did not indicate use. In all other age ranges, over 60 percent did not use the local ERIC. Campus computer accounts for the Academic Data Network (ADN) are avail- able for the asking, at no fee, to all cam- pus-affiliated faculty, students, and staff. The survey asked faculty to indicate whether or not they had an ADN account and in what locations they had access to computer connections. Forty-four (55.7%) of the 79 respondents indicated that they had ADN accounts. Faculty were more likely to have access points in the depart- ment (70.1% of 67 respondents) or in the building (64.6% of 65) than in their offices (50.7% of 75) or at home (32.3% of 65). Between seven percent and 21 percent, however, indicated that they did not know if they had access to the ADN in any of the three workplace areas or at home. A significantly greater percent of us- ers of the local ERIC had ADN accounts than did nonusers of local ERIC (see table 4). On the other hand, there was no sig- nificant association between points of access and use of local ERIC. In other words, whether or not the faculty had ADN access in their office, department, building, or home was not associated with whether or not they used locally loaded ERIC; in fact, over 50 percent or more of the respondents in the group who did not use local ERIC answered affirma- tively for all workplace points of access. Use of Other Local Online Databases The survey queried the faculty on their use of other indexes and abstracts in a 454 College & Research Libraries September 1995 TABLES Faculty Use of Indexes and Abstracts by Format* Formats Index Paper CD-ROM Own search Through on computer librarian Psycho!. Abstracts 22 33.3% 12 18.2% 12 18.2% 9 13.6% (N=66) Soc. & Behav. Curr. Coot. 28 43.1 2 3.1 15 23.1 5 7.7 (N=65) Soc. Sci. Cit. Index 29 46.0 4 6.3 7 11.1 3 4.8 (N=63) Arts & Hum. Curr. Cont. 4 7.5 0 0 5 9.4 1.9 (N=53) Life Sci. Curr. Coot. 8 15.4 1.9 2 3.8 0 0 (N=52) Soc. Sci. Index 5 10.2 1 2.0 8 16.3 3 6.1 (N=49) Reader's Guide 8 16.7 2.1 2 4.2 0 0 (N=48) Humanities Index 2 4.3 1 2.1 4 8.5 0 0 (N=47) *Numbers refer to faculty responding affirmatively; percentages are based on total answering the question. Some faculty used multiple formats. variety of formats over the previous two years. The results are shown in table 5. Not unexpectedly, faculty used Psycho- logical Abstracts®, Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences, and the Social Sci- ences Citation Index to the greatest extent. Most used the paper format or their own computer, and relatively few had librar- ians perform searches for them. PsycLJT® (CD-ROM format) has been available at single workstations in UIC' s Library of the Health Sciences since February 1992, but none of the other titles were available in CD-ROM version at UIC. Because the tape version of Psychological Abstracts®, PsyciNF()®, was not mounted as part of IBIS until October 1993, and because the Institute for Scientific Information (lSI®) citation databases were not available lo- cally, it seemed obvious that some faculty were finding other end-user searching avenues to reach the databases. This was confirmed for 34 faculty (41.9%) who in- dicated that they-used other academic and public libraries to search indexes or on- line databases. Finally, similar to findings about ERIC, the relationship between having an ADN account and personally searching data- bases other than ERIC is suggestive, as Locally Loaded Databases 455 shown in table 6. Among the population C1) "1:1 of those who did their own searching on ·s * Oc;1 0 0 computer for the indexes and abstracts . II ell C1) ~z their ignorance of which system they \C '"- Cll 8 ~ tiS ~ ~ ..0 ::l used, although Christine L. Borgman, ~ tiS 0 ~ "0 ~ (.) Donald 0. Case, and Dorothy Ingebretsen = 0 * (.) = * tiS also reported faculty confusion over da- ~ = ;> 1-< ~ tiS * B tabase and vendor names.15 Our survey = ..c:: II') C") r- ::l = Cl),....; (<") ._o S" Q ~ II 0 questions were framed using the terms CJ e,;Z 0\ 0 CJ (.) "IBIS" and "SPIRES/Prism." At the time, < 0 ;:!; tiS {/) 0 to reach BRS/ERIC, one first had to z bO 1::: choose the IBIS entry from the Library ~ ·;;;: < tiS ..c:: Menu (see figure 2) or type "IBIS" from = ~ = "c:) * within one's computer account. The OJ) 0 CllN 0 0 0 ~ = C1) II 8 searchers then had to proceed through ·;:: ~z 1::: = ....l 0 five more screens before beginning a = N 0 0 ·-= Cll search, unless they typed the file name C1) = ::l ~ 0' at the third screen. In contrast, choos- ~ e C1) ing the Library Menu entry "ERIC" ~ ::l * * -5 ~ ::I:! ~ 1-< brought up SPIRES/ERIC. Its opening = ~'I( 0 0 0 C1) 8 ~ = tZ Cll screen identified the (SPIRES) Prism soft- .s 1::: < ~ 0 0 tiS ware. Those respondents who were un- ~ 0 = Q3 1::: able to identify which interface they used c:t: ti "1:1 may have answered the questionnaire (.) :.a i:l i:l tiS ..... without reviewing the ERIC database z ...... 1::: ::l ::l 0 C1) 0 0 ~ • "1:1 they had used or may have forgotten the (.) (.) v 1::: (.) (.) ~ Pot 8.. interface name. tiS tiS C1) z z > 0 * Cll 0 0 tiS ~ * e Another factor related to access may ..c:: lt')CI) < < 0 0 0 1::: also have contributed to the difficulty in C1) C1) 1::: 1::: ·o > > v * comparing the two software interfaces. In tiS tiS 0 0 Pot* ::I: ::I: 0 0 * * 456 College & Research Libraries LIBRARY MOVE CURSOR. USE LUIS - UIC Lil:nry catalog ll.llNET - ILLINET Online (LCS and FBR) ffiiS - Periodical indexes in many subject areas ERIC - Literanire in education and related areas I..IBINF - A guide to the UIC Libnuy systems and services l..IBMAIL - Electronic mail to the University Library Hours - Hours for the UIC Libraries *Electronic Publications (submenu *Other - Access to other libraries' systems (subm~u September 1995 In other words, even unflawed user studies are only one factor in deciding appropriate software for online re- sources. Despite the limita- tions and caveats, this survey did provide a case study of use of two different software interfaces for the same locally loaded database content. A ENTER= Execute PFI =Help PF2 =Top Pf3 =QUIT PF5 =Locale year after the data- PF6 = Retrieve PF7 =Backward PF8 = Forward PF12= Cancel bases became avail- L--->--------------------....1 able, the few faculty Figure 2 . Library menu . showing a preference for one or the other addition to the Library Menu, there were chose the customized BRS MENTOR in- other avenues to each database. A terface used in IBIS/ERIC over the searcher using only one of these avenues SPIRES/ERIC interface for most func- would not have been aware of the alter- tions. Most faculty had no preference, sug- native database. One solution to the recall problem might have been to provide aids to recall on the questionnaire, such as sample screen illustrations.16 Telephoning faculty who did not respond and those who could not remember which version of ERIC they used might have· increased the response rate and perhaps helped iden- tify which interface an individual used.17 A greater number of responses to this study might have provided guidance for future choices of interfaces. Doris J. Schlichter and J. Michael Pemberton, however, have warned about the diffi- culty of translating the results of user sur- veys into concrete decisions for future ser- vices.18 There is another kind of issue as well. The library's choice of software is based not only on faculty and student preference and use, but also on such things as storage capacity of the com- puter, the economics of single institution vs. interinstitutional licenses, or the com- plexity of multiple arrangements by which an institution provides the infor- mation resources needed by its campus. gesting that their retrieval results were more important than the system used or that the differences were not significant. Among the respondents who had used only one or the other interface or did not know which interface they had used, the satisfaction rating in overall ease of use apparently did not depend on the num- ber of features they had used. The sur- vey results suggest a general hierarchy or cluster of user approaches to biblio- graphic databases, with the functions of author or subject searching and display- ing most crucial. The data do not indi- cate whether these patterns are based on users' bibliographic or information needs, on the convenience of the software or the hardware systems, or on the users' skills. Because the respondents who used both interfaces reported using all functions, it is likely that user's skill levels account for not using some of the functions, in which case instruction may, over time, change the patterns. The survey also provided data on char- acteristics of faculty who used electronic online systems by comparing faculty who had used the locally loaded ERIC with those who had not. Although Jan Horner and David Thirlwall found variation across disciplines regarding any kind of use of machine-readable databases, they found less variation among all disciplines for end-user searching.19 We did not find significant differences among disciplines studied. Although only academic rank showed statistical significance, analysis of rank and age pointed to a greater use of the locally loaded ERIC among younger faculty in beginning ranks. More important, perhaps, were the findings which associated having a campus com- puter account (ADN) with use of the lo- cally loaded ERIC and with use of the lo- cally loaded Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences and H.W. Wilson's So- cial Sciences Index. Because computer connections through terminals or personal computers are not uniformly accessible in offices or buildings across the UIC campus, we ex- pected to find place of access significantly associated with the use of locally loaded databases. Other studies have shown in- consistent results about whether the avail- ability of computers or terminals contrib- utes to faculty searching online data- bases.20-22 Our own study did not show any statistically significant association between place of access and the use of the locally loaded databases. Thus use of these databases may simply be a function of scholars' time and patience in learn- ing the systems, as suggested by Stephen Lehmann and Patricia Renfro. 23 Demo- graphic analysis suggests a direction for change: since the faculty who are using online resources are at the beginning stages of their academic careers, it is likely that they have learned to use online da- tabases as students and continue to use them in spite of some inconvenience in learning new systems. Taken together, the findings concern- ing rank, age, and ADN accounts recom- mend a strategy for promoting local on- line resources and helping faculty to take Locally Loaded Databases 457 advantage of the power and potential convenience afforded them. If remote use of online resources depends · on campus computer connectivity, librarians who are involved with new faculty orientations could encourage faculty to acquire the necessary computer accounts for remote use of library resources. Working coop- eratively with the computing center, the library could issue accounts, thus increas- ing convenience of access for faculty, as well as students and staff. This study suggests that there is a range of faculty use of local online re- sources across departments. On the one hand, there has not been an immediate adoption of the online sources of even those indexes and abstracts that are used in print forms; many faculty continue to It is likely that many faculty will continue to do at least some of their work in ways similar to those that they are using currently. use print resources as they have in the past. Further study would be necessary to determine whether intensive promo- tion of the resources would increase use. On the other hand, as increasing numbers of newly hired faculty are likely to have used online resources as students, we may expect to see both a greater use of databases and a wider range of databases used in the future. Still, since not all information needs are met through these resources, it is likely that many faculty will continue to do at least some of their work in ways similar to those that they are using currently. This could mean using citations in known ref- erences to find new information sources, as Harriet Lonnqvist's study suggests is characteristic of mature scholars, or us- ing resources of other institutions. 24 The more complex question is to what extent libraries can afford to commit resources to both print access services and to elec- tronic resources and for how long a time. 458 College & Research Libraries September 1995 Notes 1. Alan E. Bayer and Gerald Jahoda, "Effects of Online Bibliographic Searching on Scientists' Information Style," Online Review 5, no. 4 (Aug. 1981): 323-33. 2. Christine L. Borgman, Donald 0. Case, and Dorothy Ingebretsen, "University Faculty Use of Computerized Databases: An Assessment of Needs and Resources," Online Review 9, no. 4 (1985) : 307-32. . 3. Ann B. Hubble, "MEDLINE Access Through an Online Catalog: A Study of User Reac- tions," in American Society of Information Science Proceedings (Medford, N.J. : Learned Informa- tion, 1988), 137-42. 4. Beryl Glitz, "Testing the New Technology: MEDLINE on CD-ROM in an Academic Health Sciences Library," Special Libraries 79, no. 1 (winter 1988): 28-33. 5. Jan Horner and David Thirlwall, "Online Searching and the University Researcher," Jour- nal of Academic Librarianship 14, no. 4 (1988): 225-30. 6. Stephen E. Wiberley Jr. and William G. Jones, "Patterns of Information Seeking in the Humanities," College & Research Libraries 50, no. 6 (Nov. 1989): 638-45. 7. Richard W. Meyer, "Management, Cost, and Behavioral Issues with Locally Mounted Da- tabases," Information Technology and Libraries (Sept. 1990): 226-41. 8. Karen L. Curtis, Ann C. Weller, and Julie M. Hurd, "Information Seeking Behavior: A Sur- vey of Health Sciences Faculty Use of Indexes and Databases," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 81, no. 4 (Oct. 1993): 383-92. 9. Charles T. Meadow, "ONLINE Searching and Computer Programming: Some Behavioral Similarities (Or ... Why End Users Will Eventually Take Over the Terminal)," Online 3, no. 1 (Jan. 1979): 49-52. 10. William H. Mischa and Jounghyoun Lee, "End-User Searching of Bibliographic Data- bases," Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARISD 22 (1987): 227-63. 11. Susan Siegfried, Marcia J. Bates, and Deborah N. Wilde, "A Profile of End-User Searching Behavior by Humanities Scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 2," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 44, no. 5 (1993) : 273-91. 12. Michael V. Sullivan, Christine L. Borgman, and Dorothy Wippern, "End-Users, Mediated Searches, and Front-End Assistance Programs on DIALOG: A Comparison of Learning, Perfor- mance, and Satisfaction," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 4~, no. 1 (Jan. 1990): 27-42. 13. See Dennis A. Norlin et al., "Interface Design and Development: The Human Factor," Library Hi Tech 10, no. 3 (1992): 7-24, for discussion of developing a microcomputer interface for BRSMENTOR. 14. lliiS was a joint project of the Libraries of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Illinois at Chicago. 15. Borgman, Case, and Ingebretsen, "University Faculty Use of Computerized Databases," 313. 16. Seymour Sudman and Norman M. Bradburn, Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1974). 17. Don A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978), 191. 18. 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, no. 3 (May 1992): 257-65. 19. Horner and Thirlwall, "Online Searching," 227. 20. Katharine E. Clark and Joni Gomez, "Faculty Use of Databases at Texas A&M Univer- sity," RQ 30, no. 2 (winter 1990): 241-48. 21. Julie M . Neway, "The Role of the Information Specialist in Academic Research," Online Review 6, no. 6 (Dec. 1992): 527-35. 22. Horner and Thirlwall, "Online Searching," 227. 23. Stephen Lehmann and Patricia Renfro, "Humanists and Electronic Information Services: Acceptance and Resistance," College & Research Libraries 52, no. 5 (Sept. 1991): 411. 24. Harriet Lonnqvist, "Scholars Seek Information: Information-Seeking Behaviour and In- formation Needs of Humanities Scholars," in Papers Presented at the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) 56th General Conference, Joint Workshop Papers, Booklet 7 (1990). ERIC Document 329 288. INFORMATION COMES IN ALL SHAPES AND SIZES OCLC's TECHPRO Service catalogs it all With library resources so stretched, it's challenging to keep your cataloging up- to-date. And it's frustrating, because uncataloged materials are inaccessible to your patrons. OCLC's TECHPRO Service can help. Since 1985, we've offered solutions for libraries that have cataloging backlogs or need ongoing cataloging support. • Customized cataloging and physical processing to match your specifications • Cataloging for all bibliographic formats and many languages • Quality cataloging at prices that can reduce your overall cataloging costs Contract cataloging for books, serials, scores, non-print items, foreign language materials and more-it's cataloging in all shapes and sizes-from OCLC's TECHPRO Service. 1-800-848-5878, ext. 4386 Bill Ill·