College and Research Libraries JINNIE Y. DAVIS AND STELLA BENTLEY Factors Affecting Faculty Perceptions of Academic Libraries Data from a survey of the teaching faculty at three academic institutions show the effects of four variables upon their perceptions and use of their libraries. Of the four-institutional affiliation, subject area, academic rank, and length of time at the institution-length of time proved most often to be the statistically significant factor. This suggests that academic librarians might intensify their public service efforts for newer faculty. THE TEACHING AND RESEARCH FUNCfiONS of postsecondary institutions dictate to a large extent the collections and services of academic libraries. The teaching faculty's perceptions and use of their libraries are therefore of primary concern to academic li- brarians. Furthermore, faculty use of the li- brary can be a major factor in library use by other clientele, particularly students. Allen, for example, shows that the attitude of indi- vidual instructors is the most notable factor influencing student use of the library. 1 Faculty use studies tend to fall into two categories. The majority deal with the ef- forts of local library personnel to enhance library use by their faculty through the de- velopment of more individualized services; these works will be discussed later. A far smaller number attempt to isolate distinct variables affecting the faculty mem- bers' attitudes and library use. For example, Nicholson and Bartlett included in their survey a question about the reasons for fac- ulty use of the library: 56.3 percent of the uses were for research. 2 Rzasa and Moriarty's analysis also found that the prin- cipal reason for faculty use was for research purposes. 3 Dougherty and Blomquist re- ported physical accessibility and attractive- ness to be among the more important items contributing to user satisfaction. 4 ]innie Y. Davis is a doctoral candidate, Gradu- ate Library School, and Stella Bentley is assistant librarian, Education Library, both at Indiana University, Bloomington. A few others have extended their re- search to include an examination of the rela- tionship between variables. Allen, in studying attitudes and use among community college students and fac- ulty, discovered that neither level of educa- tion nor field of specialization was a significant indicator of differences for the faculty. 5 In his examination of faculty awareness and attitudes toward reference service, Nel- son found that level of awareness was di- rectly related to rank and length of time at the institution. 6 The present study is an effort at further statistical exploration of the relationship among selected variables dealing with the perception of an academic library by its faculty. Specifically, the questions posed were: How does institutional affiliation, subject area, academic rank, or length of time at an institution affect faculty members' attitudes toward their library? And, based upon those findings, what can academic librarians do to facilitate library use by the faculty? The data analyzed for this study stem from a survey of faculty use of the libraries at three small private institutions of higher education in Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University, the College of the Holy Cross, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). 7 Because the original survey was aimed at determining the viability of merg- ing the three separate libraries, many of the questions included were pertinent only to 527 528 I College & Research Libraries • November 1979 tricollege cooperation . This paper examines the items comprising the portion of rele- vance to faculty members' use of their own institution's library. METHODOLOGY In March 1977 a · questionnaire was sent to selected faculty at the three institutions. Although the size of both the faculty and student body at each school is comparable, their academic orientation varies considera- bly: Clark is a liberal arts school with a his- torically strong graduate program; Holy Cross is basically an undergraduate liberal arts institution; WPI is predominantly an undergraduate science and engineering college. The sampling frame was the faculty roster found in each college's catalog for the 1977-78 academic year. From these were excluded all nonteaching faculty (e.g., li- brarians, administrators, adjunct personnel), all non-full-time faculty (e. g. , affiliate -per- sonnel), and all nonpermanent faculty (e.g., visiting professors) . Thus the population consisted of all full-time teaching faculty at the three schools, a total of 474. Because of the relative homogeneity of the population , a 25 percent simple random sample of the full-time teaching faculty at each institution (a total of 121) was selected to receive a mail questionnaire. The survey consisted of thirty multipart questions in the areas of personal back- ground, library use, and library evaluation . The design used a five-point scale for re- sponse categories and a checklist response format to allow minimum effort on the part of the respondents. 8 Members of the sample were assured of questionnaire confidentiality, although form coding allowed a record to be kept of non- respondents. Two weeks after the date of receipt of the original questionnaire by members of the sample, a follow-up letter and second copy of the questionnaire were sent to faculty who had not yet responded. One week later, the staff at each library made telephone calls to the remaining non- respondents in their respective institutions, requesting form completion and return. The response rates for the three schools varied: Clark returned 25 usable responses out of 38, or 66 percent; WPI, 30 out of 44 questionnaires, or 68 percent. The Holy Cross faculty returned 82 percent, or 32 out of 39, of the questionnaires. This resulted in a 72 percent (87 out of 121) overall return rate. VARIABLES For this study the responses were analyzed to ascertain the significance of four characteristics of the faculty members upon their use of, perceptions of, and attitudes toward their academic libraries . The independent variables, or characteris- tics of faculty members , were: institutional affiliation, subject area, academic rank, and length of time at the institution. The dependent variables cross-tabulated with these characteristics were faculty re- sponses to twenty-three questions covering the following general areas: expectation of finding a specific item in their library; per- ceptions of whether student library needs are satisfied; attitudes toward the impor- tance to their use of the library of items such as the helpfulness of the library staff, quality of the collection, library hours, con- venience of access; and perceptions of the adequacy of library services for their teach- ing and research needs. It was expected that three of the four in- dependent variables, namely, subject area, academic rank, and length of time at the institution, would result in statistically sig- nificant differences in responses to these questions. Since previous research had shown that variation in library use and at- titudes among faculty at all three schools was not substantial, 9 institutional affiliation was not considered to be potentially sig- nificant. The subject field of each faculty member was expected to yield significant differences because of the differing needs and uses of literature in the various disciplines . The significance of academic rank was posited because of the differing reasons for library use, different levels and types of courses taught, and different degrees of teaching and research experience associated with in- creasing rank. Finally, the faculty member's length of stay at an institution was expected to be significant because a longer term suggested a correspondingly longer period of library use and, hence, more familiarity with the institution's library. In addition, results for academic rank and length of stay were ex- pected to be similar, since higher rank is usually related to length of time at an institution. RESULTS Because the data that were collected con- sisted of frequencies in discrete categories, the chi-square test was used to determine if there were any significant differences among faculty members in library use and at- titudes, as related to subject field, academic rank, institutional affiliation, or length of time at the institution. Since this test may be used only if the expected freque;.cies in each cell of the contingency table are suf- ficiently large, it was sometimes necessary to combine adjacent categories in order to increase the expected frequencies in various cells . In addition, "no opinion" categories were dropped from the calculations, al- though those figures are reported in notes to the tables . Items such as success in a specific item search, convenience of access, hours, circu- lation policies , quality of reference service, quality of the collection, acquisition proce- dures, and physical environment were ex- pected to show significant differences when cross-tabulated with three of the indepen- dent variables. However, of the ninety-two cross-tabulations performed (for each of the four independent variables with the twenty-three dependent variables), only seven resulted in significant differences at the 0.05 level. As expected, institutional affiliation yielded no significant differences when crossed with any of the dependent variables. Findings related to the other in- dependent variables were of greater inter- est. Subject field and academic rank of the faculty members each resulted in only one significant area of difference, for the same question on expectation of finding specific items in the library (table 1). By subject field, the faculty members in the sciences were most positive in their evaluations, with thirty (85. 7 percent) of those respondents always or frequently expecting success in a known-item search. On the other hand, only fifteen (68.2 percent) of the humanities F acuity Perceptions I 529 TABLE 1 EXPECTATION RATE BY S UBJECT, RANK , AND LENGTH OF TIME AT AN INSTIT UTION When you go to your library for a specific item, what is your expectation that when you leave the library, you will have the item in hand? umber of Resp onses Always/ Som etim es/ Frequ e ntl y Rar e ly Subject Field Science 30 5 Humanities 15 7 Social Science 12 11 x2 = 7.76 2df sig = .02 Rank Professor 28 3 Assoc. Prof. 19 8 Asst. Prof. , etc. 15 13 x2 = 11.73 Length of Time 2df sig = .003 0-6 Years 20 16 7+ Years 42 7 x2 = 8.10 2 df sig = .004 faculty and twelve (52.1 percent) of the social sciences faculty always or frequently expected success. In the cross-tabulations by rank, twenty- eight (90.3 percent) of the full professors always or frequently expected success for a specific item search ; in contrast, only nine- teen (70.4 percent) of the associate profes- sors and fifteen (53 .6 percent) of the assis- tant professors , lecturers, and instructors held such high expectations . The characteristic that yielded the largest number of significant differences when cross-tabulated with the dependent var- iables was that of length of time at the in- stitution. Table 1 illustrates the results con- cerning expectation rate : high expectations of finding specific items sought were ex- pressed by forty-two (85. 7 percent) of those who had been at an institution for seven or more years, but only by twenty (55.5 per- cent) of those whose length of stay was fewer than six years. Table 2 shows the relationship of length of time to four other variables. First, it was found that forty-three (89.6 percent) of the faculty members whose length of stay exceeded seven years be- lieved that their students' library needs were being satisfied, while this belief was shared by only nineteen (55. 9 percent) of the faculty with shorter lengths of tenure. Also, more of those in the "7 + years" 530 I College & Research Libraries • November 1979 TABLE 2 RELATION OF LENGTH OF TIME AT A I STITl'TIO N TO FOl' R VARIABLES Numher of Re sponses Le ngth of Tim e Yes No/ l ' n su re 0--6 Years 19 15 7+ Years 43 5 X2 = 10.50 1 df sig = .001 Rank the importance of the helpfulness of the library staff in your use of [the] library . 0--6 Years 7+ Years Ranke d First , Semnd , Third Fourth , F ifth , Sixth 21 12 37 6 x2 = 4 .02 1 df sig = .04 Rate the adequacy of the speed of cataloging for your teaching and research needs.* \ 'e ry Ade qu ate/ Ad e quat e Inade qu ate/ Total!\' lnade qu.ate 0--6 Years 18 8 7+ Years 38 3 x2 = 4 .78 1 df sig = .03 Rate the adequacy of the quality of the collec- tion in your field of interest for your teaching and research needs. t 0--6 Years 7+ Years *No opinion = IH. t No opinion = I . \ 'e ry Ad equat e/ Ade qu ate Inadequ ate/ Totall v lnadeqt;ate 13 17 40 8 x2 = 11.79 1 df sig = .0006 category ranked the helpfulness of the li- brary staff high in terms of importance to their use of the library (thirty-seven, or 86.0 percent, as opposed to twenty-one , or 63.6 percent, of the "0-6 years" category). Finally, fewer of the newer faculty gave high ratings to the adequacy of the speed of cataloging (eighteen, or 69.2 percent) and to the adequacy of the quality of the collection in their field (thirteen, or 43.3 percent). This contrasts sharply with the positive re- sponses indicated by those with longer lengths of stay: thirty-eight , or 92.7 percent, and forty, or 83.3 percent, respectively, felt that these two factors were adequate or very adequate. DISCUSSION Three conclusions stand out. First, for most of the survey questions dealing with satisfaction or adequacy of the collection, policies, and staff of the library, there are no significant differences in the responses by school , field, rank, or length of time at the institution of the responding faculty member. Many of these results were unexpected and indicate the need for fur- ther study. For example, the results did not support the conjecture that subject field would yield significant differences when cross-tabulated with the dependent variables. Likewise, the expectation that responses broken down by rank and length of time at the institution would be more similar because the fre- quent correlation between the two was not confirmed-length of time yielded five items that were significantly different when cross-tabulated, contrasting with only one i tern for rank. Second, significant differences by subject field, rank, and length of time at the institu- tion were found in expected satisfaction rate for a known item search . Again, further investigation would help to clarify these findings. The fact that faculty in the sciences ex- hibited the highest satisfaction of expecta- tions may be a reflection of the more com- pact nature of scientific literature, as compared with those of the humanities and social sciences. Circulation policies may also have a bearing on the matter-material of greatest use for scientists tends to be cur- rent periodical literature, usually not circu- lated and therefore more readily available in the library. . The inverse relationship of high satisfac- tion rate and lower academic rank may be attributable to various reasons , including varying levels of research needs to be satisfied. Those at the assistant professor level may be under greatest pressure to conduct publishable research and, hence, may demand more of their libraries, while tenured professors might have less urgent research needs and require less. Additional factors to consider are the pos- sible relationships of increased power to af- fect library policy with higher academic rank and of declining expectations with age (assuming a correlation between greater age and higher rank). This suggests several strategies for the improvement of service to the faculty. For example, subject bibliographers and acquisi- tions librarians may need to review their selection policies to eliminate causes of dis- satisfaction, for example, through the pur- chase of multiple copies where necessary . Closer contact with the faculty may also be desirable for librarians to keep abreast of the faculty's current research interests and provide concomitant bibliographical sup- port. Changes in circulation policies may also increase satisfaction rate. Third, and perhaps the most prominent finding, is that faculty members with less time at an institution are the most dis- satisfied members. There are several possi- ble reasons for this: newer faculty are less familiar with the library and its services, they may use the library more, they may come from institutions with stronger librar- ies , etc. For librarians , a noteworthy observation is that these dissatisfied faculty members are also the group that ascribes lesser im- portance to the helpfulness of the library staff. This suggests that librarians should focus upon new faculty members as a target for concentrated public relations and public service efforts. This is underscored by fur- ther analysis of the data. As mentioned earlier, Nelson's 1973 study of faculty awareness of reference services found that "level of awareness varied di- rectly with length of service at the col- lege. " 10 That is, using ten years as the di- viding line, Nelson showed that faculty who had taught at the college longer had higher mean awareness scores than those with a lesser length of tenure. A cross-tabulation of the present data using ten years instead of seven as the dividing point produced sig- nificant differences at the 0.05 level for the same items as before, with a single excep- tion: importance of helpfulness of library staff in faculty use of the library. The most negative response from this group of newer faculty dealt with their per- ception of the adequacy of the collection in their areas. It is possible that the satisfac- tion of the older faculty stems from their own participation over the years in collec- tion building. To act upon these findings, librarians may draw upon techniques proposed in the li- Faculty Perceptions I 531 brary literature. Among these activities are: first, to direct faculty attention upon the re- sources of the library, Koppelman suggests the arrangement of faculty orientation tours. 11 Workshops solely for faculty mem- bers have also been conducted with success, whether· focusing upon general library re- sources or specific areas of library service. 12 The structuring of formal channels of com- munication can be achieved by means of membership on library liaison committees13 and , where appropriate , by librarians' at- tendance at departmental meetings. 14 Uses of printed communication include the dis- semination by librarians of house organs and handbooks, 15 as well as form letters and in- formal memoranda. 16 Nelson reports that in- formal, personal notes have been found to be particularly productive. The involvement of librarians in the teaching process is recommended through the delivery of lectures to individual classes 17 and through membership on academic committees outside the library, for example, curriculum committees. 18 A basic groundwork may be laid simply by studying course schedules and becoming familiar with the academic programs of the various departments. 19 Greater support for the re- search and teaching activities of faculty members may be accomplished through SDI services; the Mechanized Information Center at the Ohio State University Librar- ies is a working example. Other services re- ported as successful devices include the availability of manual current awareness sys- tems and of comprehensive research assis- tance, and the compilation of topical re- search guides, all initiated by library staff "in anticipation of the needs of . . . us- ers."20 The strengthening of personal relation- ships among individual librarians and faculty is likely to be a by-product of any of the techniques mentioned above. More active approaches include the assignment of a li- brarian as an official liaison with faculty in each department. 21 Finally, the merits of in- formal contacts through coffee breaks and open houses have been advocated by sev- eral authors. 22 By implementing selected programs of this sort, librarians can not only help to ensure the building of collections appropriate to the interests of these groups 532 I College & Research Libraries • November 1979 but also alert them at an early stage to ser- vices available in the library. Several potential areas of research have already been mentioned. In addition, other questions raised but not dealt with in this study are: Do academic libraries have adequate collections and collection de- velopment policies to meet the needs of their newer faculty? Are senior faculty members as a whole less active in conduct- ing research? Is their satisfaction with the library based on lowered expectations re- sulting from past failures? Do the interests of newer faculty tend to center on newly developing areas, in which existing library holdings are inadequate? Finally, investigat- ing specific causes of dissatisfaction among new and lower-rank faculty would be bene- ficial in determining factors of which librar- ians may not even be aware. REFERENCES 1. Kenneth Allen , " Student and Faculty At- titudes ," Library College journal 3:29 (Fall 1970). 2 . Natalie N. Nicholson and Eleanor Bartlett, "Who Uses University Libraries?" College & Research Libraries 23:217-22, 257-59 (May 1962). 3 . Philip V. Rzasa and John H. Moriarty, "The Types and Needs of Academic Library Users : A Case Study of 6,568 Responses," College & Research Libraries 31 :403-9 (Nov. 1970). 4. Richard M. Dougherty and Laura L. Blom- quist, Improving Access to Library Re- sources: The Influence of Organization of Li- brary Collections and of User Attitudes toward Innovative Services (Metuchen , N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974), p.44 . 5. Allen, "Student and Faculty Attitudes," p .28-36. 6. Jerold Nelson , " Faculty Awareness and At- titudes toward Academic Library Reference Services: A Measure of Communication ," Colleg e & Research Libraries 34:268-75 (Sept. 1973) . 7. Results of the original survey are available as ERIC document ED 143 346, The Viability of Merging Three Academic Institutions in Worcester, by David Kaser and Jinnie Y. Davis. 8. Ibid. See p.93-98 for the specific items asked in the questionnaire. 9. Ibid., p.62- 73 . 10. Nelson, "Faculty Awareness and Attitudes ," p.270. 11. Connie Koppelman, "Orientation and In- struction in Academic Art Libraries," Special Libraries 67:257 (May/June 1976). 12. Hannelore B. Rader, "Campus Contacts: De- veloping Faculty Cooperation and Campus Publicity; Methods and Materials ," in Mary Bolner, ed., Planning and Developing a Li- brary Orientation Program , Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Library Orientation for Academic Libraries, Eastern Michigan University , May 3-4, 1973 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Pierian Press , 1975), p . 15. 13. James 0 . Lehman , " Library-Faculty Liaison in the Small College, " Southeastern Librar- ian 20:103 (Summer 1970) . 14. Rader, "Campus Contacts," p . 14. 15. Lehman, "Library-Faculty Liaison," p . 102. 16. Nelson, " Faculty Awareness and Attitudes, " p.39 . 17. Lehman , "Library-Faculty Liaison, " p.103. 18. Edward G. Holley , "Effective Librarian-Fac- ulty Relationships ," Illinois Libraries 43:732 (Dec . 1961) . 19. Rader, " Campus Contacts," p.14 . 20. JoAnn Bell and Ann J. Davis, " Sex, SIN, and Dirty Books ," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 62 :57 (Jan. 1974). 21. B. Lamar Johnson, "Vitalizing a College Li- brary : A Quarter of a Century Later, " in Louis Shores , Robert Jordan, and John Har- vey, eds . , The Library-College (Philadelphia: Drexel Press , 1966), p.134. 22. See, for example, the articles by Holley and Rader , cited above, or Lee Lebbin's " Com- munication Spelled C-0-F-F-E-E " in Michi- gan Librarian 38:8-9 (Autumn 1972).