weingart.p65 When Questions Are Answers 127 When Questions Are Answers: Using a Survey to Achieve Faculty Awareness of the Library’s Electronic Resources Sandra J. Weingart and Janet A. Anderson The Utah State University (USU) Libraries spend approximately 11 per­ cent of their materials budget on electronic resources. Because elec­ tronic resources occupy no shelf space and often are used from remote locations, it can be difficult to alert users to new resources at the library and to determine what sort of patron support is needed. This study in­ vestigated electronic database awareness and use by 856 USU admin­ istrators and teaching faculty. The responses revealed the need for greater publicity regarding new acquisitions, training opportunities, and meth­ ods of remote access. Unexpectedly, the survey itself, with its accompa­ nying descriptions of databases and access methods, met many of the needs it identified. tah State University (USU) Li­ braries have been acquiring electronic resources for more than a decade. Today, locally mounted and Web-accessible electronic databases command approximately 11 percent of the institution’s materials bud­ get and provide access to information far beyond the limits of the libraries’ print collections. But how does the university library make patrons aware of resources that occupy no traditional shelf space, and how does it determine what kinds of pa­ tron support are needed in the new elec­ tronic realm? The USU libraries surveyed adminis­ trators and teaching faculty regarding their awareness and use of the libraries’ electronic resources. Predictably, their re­ sponses revealed the need for greater publicity on each new resource as it is acquired, training opportunities, and the mechanics of remote access to resources. Unexpectedly, the survey itself, with its accompanying descriptions of available electronic resources and guidelines for access, served to meet many of the needs it identified. Results of the survey were made available via the libraries’ home page and in hard copy. In all, fifty-five data­ bases were publicized and more than eighty faculty questions were directly a d d r e s s e d . A l t h o u g h t h e l i b r a r i e s gained insight via the survey process, the greater benefit was the questionnaire’s informational function for the faculty members. Sandra J. Weingart is Science Reference Librarian in the Utah State University Libraries; e-mail: sanwei@cc.usu.edu. Janet A. Anderson is the Campus Services Librarian in the Utah State University Libraries; e-mail: janand@cc.usu.edu. 127 mailto:janand@cc.usu.edu mailto:sanwei@cc.usu.edu 128 College & Research Libraries March 2000 Literature Review A review of the literature showed that many surveys on the use of electronic re­ sources involve point-of-use data collec­ tion through the log-on procedure, obser­ vation, or structured interview. 1–3 Although these surveys included faculty members, none of them targeted faculty members specifically. A study at Ameri­ can University and the University of the District of Columbia used a mail survey but focused exclusively on third-year undergraduates.4 Those studies that have specifically targeted university faculty members show a persistent pattern of unawareness of the availability of particu­ lar resources and methods of access— from the early days of end-user search­ ing through the Internet explosion.5,6 Because the questionnaire was distributed to all administrators and teaching faculty, inferential statistics based on random sampling tech­ niques would have been inappropri­ ate tools for analysis. Methods In January 1998, a two-part survey mailed to USU teaching faculty and administrators sought information on their knowledge and use of specific databases and electronic ac­ cess to library-supplied information in gen­ eral. Part one of the instrument listed the fifty-five databases then available electroni­ cally and used a checklist format to indi­ cate for each database: awareness of its avail­ ability, faculty use, class/student use, and ease of use. Part two asked about general issues of electronic library access (e.g., Were you aware that some electronic databases can be accessed from your home or office? Have you ever accessed the university li­ braries’ home page?). In addition, part two asked which, if any, library training sessions for electronic resources the respondents had participated in and how the respondents rated them. Questions about academic de­ partment, rank, and role (e.g., teaching, re­ search, extension) supplied demographic data for further analysis of the findings. A final question solicited any other comments about electronic databases or the university libraries. On average, it took less than ten minutes to complete both parts of the sur­ vey.7 Along with the survey instrument, fac­ ulty members were sent an annotated list of the fifty-five databases covered by the survey. In addition to basic descriptive in­ formation, this list grouped the databases by access method for campus users: avail­ able via the libraries’ online CD-ROM net­ work, available only on workstations lo­ cated in the reference departments, Web- based resources accessible through the USU domain, or accessible via the libraries’ online catalog gateway. The list of databases was included to address the concern that faculty members might not recognize the names of the electronic resources they had used. Surveys were sent to 881 individuals identified by the university’s Office of Per­ sonnel Services as teaching faculty or ad­ ministrators. Of these, twenty-five were retired, on sabbatical, or otherwise unavail­ able to respond. Using a modified Dillman methodology, a follow-up postcard was sent to the remaining 856 subjects and a second copy of the questionnaire was later mailed to on-campus teaching faculty members who did not respond to the ini­ tial mailing.8 A total of 426 individuals re­ sponded, for a return rate of 49.8 percent. Because the questionnaire was distrib­ uted to all administrators and teaching faculty, inferential statistics based on ran­ dom sampling techniques would have been inappropriate tools for analysis. Fur­ thermore, the data collected suggest a strong response bias in favor of those with greater electronic experience. For these two reasons, only descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data generated by the survey and the results cannot be assumed to represent the administration and faculty as a whole. Results Ratauase Awareness The first question about each database simply asked whether the respondent was aware that the resource was available at USU in electronic format. As table 1 When Questions Are Answers 129 TABLE 1 Awareness of Database Availability Database % Unaware This No. of Database Was Available Responses ABI/Inform (business) 55.8 353 Agricola (agriculture) 37.9 351 America: History and Life 59.6 344 American Business Disc 66.7 339 Anthropological Literature 60.9 340 Applied Science & Technology Index 48.1 343 Art Index 59.5 341 Biological and Agricultural Index 46.3 352 Biosis (biology) 51.9 343 Business Periodicals Index 52.4 347 City/County Databook 61.3 341 Commsearch (communications) 66.9 332 Compact Disclosure (business) 67.4 337 Compendex Engineering Index 65.6 334 Current Contents 33.6 354 Deseret News 40.8 341 Dissertation Abstracts 24.0 363 EBSCOhost ( ournal articles) 51.3 339 Education Index 44.2 346 Environmental Periodicals Bibliography 63.6 332 ERIC (education) 34.6 353 Ethnic Newswatch 67.9 333 Fish and Fisheries Worldwide 65.1 332 FSTA Food Science & Technology 64.0 328 General Periodicals 38.0 342 Georef (geology) 65.3 331 Historical Abstracts 59.7 335 Humanities Index 52.1 338 Index to (US) Government Documents 39.8 337 Index to Legal Periodicals & Books 59.6 329 Index to UN Documents and Publications 63.7 328 Infotrac SearchBank ( ournal articles) 55.4 334 MLA International Bibliography 62.1 327 MathSci 61.9 339 Medline (medicine) 42.2 348 National Criminal Justice Service 69.2 328 NESE National Economic, Social, and 69.9 332 Environmental Data Bank New York Times Index 44.2 342 NTDB National Trade Data Bank 70.2 329 OnPoint (business) 72.2 331 Psychlit (psychology) 57.5 339 Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature 38.3 350 Social Sciences Index 41.5 347 Sociofile (sociology) 63.4 347 Sport Database 68.2 336 130 College & Research Libraries March 2000 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Awareness of Database Availability Database % Unaware This No. of Database Was Available Responses Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 51.6 345 Trademarks Registered 68.7 332 UMI ProQuest Direct U ournal articles) 69.9 336 U.S. Patents UClass & Bibliography) 63.0 335 U.S.A. Counties 69.9 335 Wall Street Journal 41.0 344 Water Resources Abstracts 63.1 333 Wildlife Worldwide 65.5 336 shows, Dissertation Abstracts received the highest rating, with 76 percent of respon­ dents aware of its electronic availability. It was followed by Current Contents (66%), ERIC (65%), and Agricola, Wilson’s Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature, and General Periodicals Index (each 62%). Sixty percent of all respondents were aware of the electronic availability of Index to (US) Government Documents, whereas Wall Street Journal, Deseret News, and Wilson’s Social Sciences Index were each known by 59 percent of respondents. The lowest rating was for the business database OnPoint, with only 28 percent of respon­ dents aware of its availability. Although these figures may seem high for awareness of electronic-format re­ sources, it is important to remember that the total survey response rate was just under 50 percent and that a response bias favoring electronic database users is likely. The awareness figures were more useful when broken down by the respon­ dents’ academic departments. These data were made available to subject specialist librarians who could use them in their work with individual departments. In a question designed to probe the va­ lidity of the survey instrument, respon­ dents were asked: Did you have diffi­ culty answering any of the questions about the databases because you did not know the name(s) of the database(s) you have used? Almost 27 percent answered yes. This response validated the concern that had prompted inclusion of the an­ notated list of databases with the origi­ nal survey mailing. Database Importance and Student Use Respondents who were aware of and use each database were asked to rate the im­ portance of that database to their own work and to indicate whether they encourage or require their students to use it. Among these respondents, the resources rated as either “important” or “essential” to their own work by at least 50 percent of indi­ viduals included: Dissertation Abstracts (80%), Current Contents (65%), EBSCOhost (journal articles) (59%), and ERIC (51%). No individual database was recommended to students by more than 50 percent of those responding to each question. Less class use than faculty use also was suggested by the fact that response rates for this entire ques­ tion category dropped dramatically—that is, among all the databases listed, the larg­ est number of individuals (just 136) re­ sponded to this question for Dissertation Abstracts. Of these, 40 percent encourage or require student use of this electronic source. Three business-related resources had no recommended student use: Ameri­ can Business Disc (0% of 71 respondents), OnPoint (0% of 50 respondents), and Trade­ marks Registered (0% of 52 respondents). Ease of Use Response rates fell still lower when fac­ ulty members who use each electronic database were asked to rate ease of use. o ..Q ZQ ZQ Q Q' Q When Questions Are Answers 131 Current Contents elicited the greatest feedback, with ninety-eight people an­ swering the question and 62 percent of these rating it “easy to use.” At the low end of the responses, just three individu­ als answered for Medline, none of whom found it easy to use. The investigators hypothesized that faculty members may have been comfortable assigning an “im­ portance for your own work” rating on the basis of database title alone, whether or not they actually used the electronic version of the resource. However, the low response rates on student use and ease of use may be truer indicators of actual faculty knowledge and use of the electronic formats. Remote Access to Library Databases Although more than two-thirds of respon­ dents (68%) were aware that some of the libraries’ electronic databases could be accessed from their home or office, only 54 percent had actually done so. And al­ though almost two-thirds (64%) were aware of the libraries’ Web home page, less than half (48%) had accessed it. Again, the relatively high awareness and use figures were tempered by the presumption of re­ sponse bias in favor of faculty with greater electronic skills. Forty-five percent of re­ spondents were aware that (due to licens­ ing agreements) some of the libraries’ elec­ tronic databases could be accessed only from terminals located in the two library buildings (see table 2). Database Training Ninety-six respondents (23%) had at­ tended library-provided instruction for one or more electronic databases. Of these, 80 percent had attended just one instruc­ tion session, 14 percent had attended two, and 6 percent had attended three or four. The most commonly attended workshop was training for either EBSCOdoc or EBSCOhost resources (one-third of attend­ ees). Twenty-seven percent of respondents had attended training on Lexis/Nexis, and 13 percent had received library instruc­ tion in the use of Agricola. 132 College & Research Libraries March 2000 When asked to rate the effectiveness of workshop training (ninety-nine work­ shop sessions were evaluated), 41 percent rated the instruction they received “bet­ ter than adequate,” 50 percent rated it “ad­ equate,” and 10 percent rated it “inad­ equate.” These ratings were analyzed by workshop rated, and the data were pro­ vided to the librarian-instructors. How­ ever, low response rates rendered this in­ formation less useful than the evaluation process that is conducted in each work­ shop on a regular basis. Respondent Comments and Questions Comments and questions on any library- related topic were solicited at the end of the survey. Most common were requests for databases the libraries did not then offer in electronic format. Twenty-two respondents (5%) requested a total of nineteen databases. Twelve people (3%) expressed the wish that all databases were available electronically, and twelve (3%) indicated a need for more information, documentation, or guidance on accessing electronic resources remotely. In all, twenty-seven people (6%) expressed their compliments or thanks for various library services (e.g., “We’re making good progress,” “I’m so grateful to have access from my office,” “The libraries’ Web site is exciting!,” “Library personnel are very helpful”). Many individuals expressed specific concerns or questions, such as: “Access is too slow!” “I can’t figure out how to print from Agricola and Current Contents,” “I can never access PsycLit from my office.” The main finding from the survey data was that the university libraries need to work harder to publicize the available electronic resources, how to access them, and what each database has to offer. Several people requested services that were already in place (e.g., “Would be interested in services that allow me to download entire journal articles”). Some were simply unclear in their meanings: “When I need them, I want them there” and “Please—USU Libraries home page.” The first clue that the survey was as useful to those being surveyed as it was to those administering the survey was the early response: “If this is your way of hint­ ing that I might want to make myself more aware of the libraries’ holdings, I get the point.” Eleven respondents ex­ pressed appreciation for the materials that were distributed with the survey: “Sur­ vey was very informative” and “Thanks for the list of databases!” Discussion The survey provided the libraries with some concrete and “actionable” informa­ tion on how faculty members use the li­ braries’ electronic resources. For example, when analyzed by academic department, survey data allowed librarians to address needs for information and access support within particular disciplines. The main finding from the survey data was that the university libraries need to work harder to publicize the available electronic re­ sources, how to access them, and what each database has to offer. The investigators did not anticipate in advance that the survey and the accom­ panying documentation of available da­ tabases and access methods would go a long way toward meeting the needs the survey itself identified. What better pub­ licity for the databases than to distribute an annotated list to every individual fac­ ulty member? Both the accompanying lists and the survey instrument served to publicize available electronic resources. The survey’s request for comments brought out many questions that previ­ ously had gone unasked and therefore unanswered. Tables of results were shared with li­ brary faculty members, and a summary of key findings was posted on the librar­ ies’ home page. In addition to the sum­ mary of findings, the home page report addressed every question submitted by survey respondents. Questions were grouped by topics (e.g., CD-ROMs, li­ When Questions Are Answers 133 FIGURE 1 Sample Page "University Libraries' Database Survey: Response to Faculty Comments" CD-ROMS Leaving CDs on the tower for over a year is poor service, especially when updates arrive quarterly. It is very hard to get into the CD-ROMs from home. For databases located only on terminals in Merrill Library: This is a drag! Need to have user's manuals available nearby where the databases are used. The CD-ROMs are clunky and slow to use. Consider putting all databases on the same frontend (i.e., web page) using a Winspirs-like program. Databases are accessed by a hodgepodge of routines that is inefficient (mapping local drives, telnet to OPAC, etc.). It's a big mess! The Library responds: CD-ROM updates are mounted as they are received. During the past year we have had some difficulties with a few of our subscriptions. After these were ironed out and we began receiving the updates again, we made them available. Several are only updated once a year. With regard to connection to the CD-ROM databases from home, the issue is licensing and user authentication. USU libraries purchase site licenses for these databases and must restrict access to users within the USU community. Patrons are currently unable to access the CD-ROM network from off campus. We are aware of the difficulties associated with this and are looking for alternatives that may allow password-con- trolled access to the libraries' databases from off-campus locations. Some databases are only available in Merrill Library because a multi-user site license is simply beyond the range of our budget resources. Search guides for many of our databases are available on literature racks in the Reference Areas of both libraries. More in-depth guides can be found at the reference desks. And it is always appropriate to ask a reference librarian for assistance. The Merrill reference desk can be reached at 797-2678; Sci-Tech reference desk at 797- 2917. As for the clunkiness of the interface: well, we're trying. We have a couple of sticking points. One is that there are so many search interfaces out there. It's impossible to find one that will work for every database we have, especially as regards the online catalog and the journal indexes. The databases are built differently, and what works well with one is not appropriate with the other. In addition, some of the software just can't be made to work together. We are also trying to satisfy a diverse clientele. If a search interface is user-friendly and intuitive, it will sacrifice the sophisticated capabilities that experienced searchers want. In many cases, we don't choose the interface. We simply use what comes with the databases, as it is sometimes the only thing that will work. We are always looking for a good middle ground. 134 College & Research Libraries March 2000 brary staff and customer service, connec­ tivity, etc.) and answered in a “The library responds . . .” format (see figure 1).9 The availability of this information was an­ nounced in a hard-copy flyer sent to ev­ ery faculty member. Faculty response was very positive. In fact, it was clear that the survey process itself had met many of the faculty’s information needs. Epilogue Since this survey was completed, USU li­ braries have continued to acquire new databases, bringing the total to seventy- five as of August 1999. In addition, meth­ ods of remote access have been stream­ lined. With the migration to a Web-based environment, it has become much easier to offer one-stop shopping for the librar­ ies’ electronic resources. Rather than four separate access points—the Library Gate­ way, CD-ROM network, World Wide Web subscriptions, and stand-alone CDs— USU libraries now offer access to all but a few of the seventy-five electronic data­ bases from the Library Gateway.10 Notes 1. Peter Hyland and Lynne Wright, “Profile of Patrons and Their Use of CD-ROM Databases in an Academic Library,” Australian Library Journal 44 (May 1995): 90–100. 2. Amy Tracy Wells, “Analysis of User Need with CD-ROM Databases: A Case Study Based on Work Sampling at One University Library,” ERIC Document Number ED 368 361 (Nov. 1992). 3. Alice Omaji, “Non-Use of CD-ROM Databases in an Academic Environment,” CD-ROM Librarian 14 (Oct. 1994): 45–46. 4. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, “Student Use of Online Catalogs and Other Information Channels,” College & Research Libraries 57 (Mar. 1996): 161–75. 5. Katharine E. Clark and Joni Gomez, “Faculty Use of Databases at Texas A&M University,” RQ 30 (winter 1990): 241–48. 6. Janet F. Laribee and Carl L. Lorber, “Electronic Resources: Level of Awareness and Usage in a University Library,” CD-ROM Professional 7 (Nov./Dec. 1994): 137–38, 140–42, 144. 7. Copies of the survey instrument may be requested from the authors. 8. Don A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978). 9. Copies of the “Response to Faculty Comments” document may be requested from the authors. 10. Library Gateway is located at http://libcat.usu.edu. http:http://libcat.usu.edu http:Gateway.10