Research Article
User-focused, User-led: Space Assessment to Transform
a Small Academic Library
Christina Hillman
Assessment & Online
Program Librarian
Lavery Library
St. John Fisher College
Rochester, New York, United
States of America
Email: chillman@sjfc.edu
Kourtney Blackburn
Access Services Librarian
Lavery Library
St. John Fisher College
Rochester, New York, United
States of America
Email: kblackburn@sjfc.edu
Kaitlyn Shamp
Student Researcher
St. John Fisher College
Rochester, New York, United
States of America
Email: kks04047@sjfc.edu
Chenisvel Nunez
Student Researcher
St. John Fisher College
Rochester, New York, United
States of America
Email: cn01722@sjfc.edu
Received: 13 July 2017 Accepted:
23 Oct. 2017
2017 Hillman, Blackburn, Shamp, and Nunez. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective
– By
collecting and analyzing evidence from three data points, researchers sought to
understand how library spaces are used. Researchers have used results for
evidence based decision making regarding physical library spaces.
Methods – Undergraduate researchers, sociology faculty, and librarians used
mixed-methods to triangulate findings. Seating sweeps were used to map patrons’
activities in the library. Student-led focus groups discussed patterns of
library use, impressions of facilities, and library features and services. The
final step included a campus survey developed from seating sweeps and focus
group findings.
Results
– Seating
sweeps showed consistent use of the library's main level Learning Commons and
upper level quiet spaces; the library’s multipurpose lower level is
under-utilized. Students use the main level of the library for collaborative
learning, socializing, reading, and computer use. Students use the upper level
for quiet study and group work in study rooms. Focus group findings found
library use is task-specific. For example, a student may work with classmates
on a project using the main level Learning Commons during the day, and then
come back at night to use the quiet floor for test preparation. Survey
responses highlighted areas in which the library is deficient. For example,
respondents cited crowdedness, noise levels, and temperature concerns.
Conclusion
– These
data offer empirical evidence for library space needs. Some data aligns with
previous space studies conducted at this library: access to power outlets,
lighting, noise, and an outdated environment. Evidence also supports anecdotal
concerns of crowding, graduate students lacking designated study space, and the
need for quiet study space away from
group study space.
Introduction
Established
in 1975 as the sole library for the St. John Fisher College, Lavery Library
serves a campus of approximately 3800 students, including undergraduate,
masters, and doctoral. The College is primarily an undergraduate institution
with a growing graduate population. At the same time, the library has witnessed
a slow but dramatic shift in the way users work in physical library spaces. The
library uses daily headcounts and gate counts to improve library spaces. The
library also conducted several space studies over the past decade to inform
small-scale physical changes and better accommodate changing user needs.
Renovations since 2012 include a Learning Commons, the creation of a
multi-purpose space (Keating Room), a space with cafe-like seating, and
additional outlets. Through strategic weeding, the library has enlarged study
spaces. Recent changes include the addition of easily movable tables and
soundproofing quiet floor doors. These changes are welcomed by the campus community,
but formal and informal feedback from the students provides a clear and
consistent message: the library must continue to keep pace with their changing
space needs in order to maintain a high standard of service.
The
library is three levels, with users entering on the second (main) level. This
level houses the Keating Room and Learning Commons, which includes group
workstations with large monitors, desktop computers, and a variety of tables
and chairs for groups and individuals. The lower level includes group work
tables and two classrooms, one of which is a computer lab. The upper level is
the quiet floor, the only floor with a noise policy. There is a variety of
seating, including individual study carrels, small and large tables, individual
and group study rooms, and two reservable meeting spaces. The library is also
home to other campus departments (e.g., Career Center, Academic Opportunities
Program Office, Office of Information Technology, and others), which were not a
focus of this study.
Literature
Review
Library as Place
With
a shift from print to electronic collections, libraries have reinvented
themselves as flexible learning spaces with a focus on community. The phrase library as place best describes how
students use the library as a flexible, dynamic space adaptable for changing
needs (Freeman, 2005). Other studies discuss how students continually remake
spaces to fit their needs to support their learning (Fallin, 2016; Hanson &
Abresch, 2016). Montgomery (2014) refers to the library as a place for informal
learning, where students can set their own goals and determine their needs. The
library is thought of for its study spaces and less for services and
collections (DeClercq & Cranz, 2014; Hall and Kapa, 2015). A place to
gather and have conversations, according to Oldenburg (1997), is an important
part of learning; the library has begun to be this place. As a result of this
flexibility and community building, academic library users, particularly
students, see the library as a “third space” (DeClercq & Cranz, 2014)—a
place neither classroom nor residence hall. Academic work and socializing takes
place within third spaces, and “library as place” fills the need for this third
space.
Space Attributes
Whether
it is quiet study space or an open meeting space, the reasons how and why users
select library spaces largely depend on individual needs and activities (Cha
& Kim, 2015; İmamoğlu & Gürel, 2016; Khoo, Rozaklis, Hall, Kusunoki,
& Rehrig, 2014; Montgomery, 2014; Vaska, Chan, & Powelson, 2009).
Research focusing on students’ requirements of library spaces reveal common
themes: more natural light, larger or more tables and chairs, and more outlets
(Andrews, Wright & Raskin, 2015; DeClercq & Cranz, 2014; İmamoğlu &
Gürel, 2016; Khoo et al., 2014; Montgomery, 2014; Vaska et al., 2009). Library
spaces must also accommodate simultaneous device use by students (Ellison,
2016; Ojennus & Watts, 2017). Similarly, research indicates the need for
collaborative spaces that can accommodate a variety of technologies (Andrews et
al., 2015; Given & Archibald, 2015; Freeman, 2005; Lux, Snyder, & Boff,
2016). At the same time, Goodnight and Jeitner (2016) focus on the desire for
quiet, because students “come to the library searching for spaces that are
quiet, where they can settle down to read and study and write their papers in
silence, without distractions . . .” (p. 219) from others. Similar research
also notes individual study carrels and quiet spaces are valued (Hall &
Kapa, 2015; Montgomery & Miller, 2011; Ojennus & Watts, 2017; Oliveira,
2016).
Group Study and
Non-Quiet Spaces
Non-quiet
space in the library—for example, group study rooms and flexible learning
spaces—are ideal for many library users, as indicated by Freeman (2005). Recent
literature shows the need for more of these spaces, and that students respond
positively to redesigns which provide more flexible learning and group study
spaces (Cha & Kim, 2015; Given & Archibald, 2015; Khoo et al., 2014,
Montgomery, 2014). Studying alongside others provides visual and social
pressure for students, furthering the communal space (Andrews et al., 2015).
There is a need for libraries to create spaces where users can collaborate,
socialize, and study alone and alongside others (Andrews et al., 2015; DeClercq
& Cranz, 2014; Freeman, 2005; Montgomery, 2014; Montgomery & Miller,
2011, Ojennus and Watts, 2017).
Research
indicates students use quiet areas to accomplish serious work (e.g., to study
for exams or write papers) (Cha & Kim, 2015; DeClercq & Cranz, 2014;
Freeman, 2005; Khoo et al., 2014). Even during individual study, students often
indicate their desire to be near others studying (Andrews et al., 2015;
Applegate, 2009; Goodnight & Jeitner, 2016; Hall & Kapa, 2014; İmamoğlu
& Gürel, 2016; Montgomery, 2014). Yet, students still desire ample personal
space, feeling a space is full when 40-50% of seats are occupied (Applegate,
2009; İmamoğlu & Gürel, 2016; Khoo et al., 2014). Physical dividers would
allow users to delineate personal space and minimize distractions so that they
can work most effectively (İmamoğlu & Gürel, 2016).
Aims
The
purpose of this study is to examine and analyze how students use library
spaces. Collected evidence will be used to plan space renovations, both small
and large. Additionally, collected evidence will improve understanding of what
works, what does not work, and what is needed in the library.
Methods
This
study used multiple methods to triangulate findings and provide a clearer
understanding of how library spaces are used. Methods included seating sweeps,
focus groups, and survey. Research was conducted with Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approval.
Seating Sweeps
Seating
sweeps were based on Given and Leckie’s 2003 study, “’Sweeping’ the Library:
Mapping the Social Activity of the Public Library.” Librarian researchers
trained three permanent library staff members to assist with completing sweeps.
Data was collected floor-by-floor with printed maps and a clipboard (See
Appendix A). They were conducted three times a day for two non-consecutive
weeks during spring 2016. The first sweep took place in February, just before
spring break; the second was in April, a few weeks before finals. Sweeps were
conducted at 9 A.M., 1 P.M., and 8 P.M. to create a snapshot of user behaviours
throughout the day, and took between 15 and 60 minutes depending on busyness.
Staff recorders noted user activities and personal items, such as use of a
desktop, laptop, cell phone, tablet, or whiteboard; and if they had food or
drink. Recorders also marked if users were conducting group work, note-taking,
reading, sleeping, talking, or performing other noteworthy activities. For
instance, recorders captured when individual users occupied entire tables
intended for multiple people, or when users dragged cords across aisle ways to
reach outlets. Interested in users’ willingness to move larger furniture,
librarian researchers purposely left furniture placement off the map in the
multi-purpose Keating Room so recorders would be able to draw changes to
configurations of the space. To minimize intrusiveness, recorders maintained a
reasonable distance from users. The clipboard also included a sign stating that
a library space study was in progress in order to inform users but hopefully
not discourage or change user behaviours. Data from the coded maps were entered
into a Google Form for analysis.
Focus Groups
After
seating sweeps were completed, student researchers and sociology faculty
advisers joined the research team. Faculty advisers trained student researchers
to conduct focus groups. Focus groups
were organized by class year (9 freshmen, 9 sophomores, 10 juniors, 8 seniors,
2 masters, and 3 doctoral students) totaling 41 participants. Student
researchers recruited undergraduate participants by invitation; liaison
librarians recruited masters and doctoral participants by emailing targeted
classes. Participants were offered pizza and the chance to win a prize as an
incentive. The research team developed questions based on past local space
surveys and sweeps data. Librarian researchers and faculty advisers were not
present at the focus groups in an effort to minimize their influence on
participants’ responses. Each undergraduate group was asked the same set of
questions; these questions were altered slightly for masters and doctoral
students. Student researchers took notes of participants’ responses, and after
the focus groups were completed, the research team came together to analyze
findings. Focus group data were reviewed for common themes by each researcher
independently, and schemas were developed as a team to help inform survey
development.
Survey
The
research team developed questions based on findings from seating sweeps and
common themes from library focus group data. Qualtrics was used to build and
distribute the completed survey (See Appendix B). As with many institutions,
students have survey fatigue on our campus. In order to keep the survey short
and increase response rate, the research team opted not to include demographic
information in the survey. Prior to distribution, faculty advisers and student
researchers piloted the survey with a small group of undergraduates.
Researchers decided to exclude masters and doctoral students due to their low
participation in focus groups and a lack of relevant data.
All
undergraduates (N=2948) received the survey via email. To improve response
rate, the survey was emailed to students through the well-recognized and
respected Student Government Association (SGA). Respondents completed the
survey anonymously, with the caveat that if they wished to enter a drawing for
a $100 Amazon gift card, they needed to provide their name and email address. A
separate survey allowed respondents to enter the drawing, which allowed the
research team to maintain confidentiality of responses. The survey ran for
three weeks with two reminder emails, sent through the Qualtrics platform, to
those who had yet to complete the survey. The overall response rate was 12%.
Results
Seating Sweeps
Findings
from seating sweeps helped visualize occupancy patterns and user behaviours.
Existing library data shows the busiest time is the 1 P.M. hour Monday-Friday,
which is consistent with seating sweep findings. Data from sweeps revealed the
main level to be the busiest, followed by the upper level (see Table 1). Tables
meant for 4 people were observed with only 1 person spread over the entire
surface 12% of the time, effectively making the space fully occupied. This data
is consistent with survey findings regarding crowdedness. At the same time, the
lower level occupancy rate was less than 1% during sweeps, despite being a
non-quiet space.
Behaviours
recorded during sweeps indicated the library is a multipurpose, adaptable
space, similar to other research. A key finding from the sweeps showed 10% of
users were settling in or making themselves at home in their claimed spaces:
using bean bag chairs to get comfortable, adjusting lighting, taking off their
shoes, sleeping, and abandoning belongings for extended time. Findings from
sweeps also observed 40% of users eating or drinking, another indicator of the
library being a flexible third place. Data also showed users crowding around a
single computer monitor for collaborative work rather than making use of
collaborative group workstations and their larger monitors, with the latter
noted only three times. Students made frequent use of flexible furniture in the
library, especially in the Keating Room. Findings from sweeps showed students
use the movable whiteboards for their intended use (studying), but
interestingly, also as barriers to create privacy. Observed behaviours related
to technology confirmed informal feedback regarding the need for more outlets
and power.
Table
1
Combined Average Occupancy of Patrons by
Floor during Seating Sweeps
|
|
9a.m. |
1p.m. |
8p.m. |
|
Lower
Level |
2.5 |
9 |
11.6 |
|
Main
Level |
24 |
91.1 |
67.6 |
|
Upper
Level |
12.3 |
42.6 |
33.1 |
During
sweeps, 41.5% of users were recorded simultaneously using at least two
electronic devices, creating a higher demand for power and technology options
in the library.
Focus Groups
Findings
from focus groups provided better understanding of what users think about
library spaces, including their intended use and desire for these spaces.
Common uses for the library included studying, computer use, printing, and
working on group projects. These results were common among all focus groups.
Common responses when asked about well-liked library services and features
included: interlibrary loan, librarians and the Research Help Desk, and group
workstations for easier collaboration. When asked about services or features
they would like to see added, common responses included a stress relief room
with nap pods, extended hours, and additional quiet floor study rooms.
Participants requested smaller, 1-2 person tables for independent work, stating
once they set up at larger tables other students appear dissuaded from joining
the table. Participants suggested extended hours, with a few participants
stating the library should stay open 24 hours or at least until 3 A.M.
Findings
revealed differences in how undergraduate commuters and residents use the
library. Commuters indicated coming to the library most often between classes
to connect
with
friends, not to engage in serious work. As with many participants, commuters
mentioned choosing somewhere on the quiet level when coming to the library for
serious work. Residents use dorm lounges or their rooms for work and use the
library for printing or socializing. For group work and projects, both
commuters and residents commonly use library spaces, but stated the lack of
privacy on the main level and the noise policy on the upper level can be
frustrating. Undergraduate students mentioned the breakout rooms available in
other buildings are ideal spaces for this type of work.
Focus
group questions for masters and doctoral students differed slightly than those
asked of undergraduates. These participants’ responses revealed differences in
library use, including primarily using the library for research purposes. Most
stated using librarians as helpful resources when conducting research, and were
more emphatic in their responses regarding use of the Research Help Desk. Two
participants completed undergraduate degrees at St. John Fisher College, and
indicated their library use as graduate students is much more academically
oriented.
Survey
The
survey provided data for how undergraduates self-reported using library spaces
in relation to focus groups and sweeps data. Respondents reported using Main
Level – open area and the Keating Room (tutoring) spaces 45.57% and 8.89%,
respectively, “very often”. Respondents
self-identified using quiet floor open areas and study rooms “very often”
31.65% and 36.39% of the time, respectively. The main level is the most
self-identified used space, with the upper level spaces closely following.
Survey results find the library’s lower level (basement) is underutilized, with
basement – computer lab and basement – tables “never” being used 49.05% and
50.95% of the time, respectively. Figure 1 provides a breakdown of library
spaces and their frequency of use by respondents. Monday-Thursday and Finals
Week are the most popular times in the library: 45% of users stated they come
to the library “very often” Monday-Thursday, and 57% of users indicated that
they come to the library “very often” during Finals Week. Nearly 50% of
respondents think the library needs extended hours, which is similar to
findings from focus groups; however, just under 40% of individuals indicated
coming to the library “very often” in the evening.
Figure
1
Responses
to survey question: When I go to the library, I go to….
In
addition to revealing what spaces respondents reported using most frequently,
they also shared which spaces are deficient (see Figure 2). As previously
noted, the quiet floor and its private rooms are extremely popular, and
unsurprisingly, 69% of respondents requested additional private rooms. Also
unsurprisingly, respondents said the library needs more outlets (60%) and tables
(41%) throughout the library. The need for more outlets and tables has a strong
relationship to findings of computer use and group work, with 52% of
respondents using computers and 64% of respondents “sometimes” conducting group
work in the library. Overall, respondents are mainly interested in conducting
academic-related activities in the library. Even so, a high percentage of
respondents requested the addition of stress-relief features such as nap pods
and massage chairs, as well as Grab ‘n Go foods.
Survey
results regarding noise levels and temperature shed light on students’
individual perceptions of spaces. When asked if the library is “too noisy,” 62%
of respondents indicated the library was “sometimes” too noisy, which parallels
findings of crowdedness, as 64% of respondents indicated the library was
“sometimes” too crowded. Despite the majority of respondents indicating that
the library is “sometimes” too noisy and “sometimes” too crowded, noise and
crowdedness may not always be related. This lack of correlation may be due to
the time of day a student uses the library. For example, the 1 P.M. hour is
extremely crowded and noisy, whereas the 8 P.M. hour might be crowded but
relatively quiet. Regarding temperature, when responding to the statement “I
think the library needs . . .” with a list of options users could check (see Figure
2), 58% selected “Fans and air conditioning.” There was some relationship
between this finding and the library being too hot: 34% felt the library was
“very often” too hot and 44% felt the library is “sometimes” too hot, while 64%
felt the library is “never” too cold.
Figure
2
Response
to survey question: “I think the library needs . . .”
Discussion
Library as Place
Common
themes from space-related literature are echoed in this study’s findings. As
with Freeman (2005), Lavery Library created flexible spaces, providing
moveable, lightweight furniture for users to create their ideal study
environments. During sweeps users were consistently observed moving tables,
chairs, and whiteboards to create such environments, leading researchers to
infer users are comfortable enough in the library to make spaces fit their
needs (Montgomery, 2014). Further, observed users exemplified “library as
place” by lounging in beanbag chairs, adjusting lighting in study rooms, taking
off shoes, sleeping, and using headphones. Whether headphones were used as
noise dampening or for watching videos was not captured, and focus group
participants only mentioned their appreciation of headphones available for
checkout and earbuds for purchase at the Checkout Desk. Additionally, observations
suggested a high level of comfort in the library and with each other; users
frequently abandoned belongings. This may also be a means to save their spaces
when the library is crowded.
Students
make use of flexible learning spaces, moving tables and chairs as needed to
accommodate their needs. A good example of this is students consistently moving
tables and chairs in the Keating Room. The maps used for the sweeps
purposefully left furniture placement off the map so recorders would be able to
draw daily configurations of the space. While the space never changed
dramatically, there were small changes, including the rolling white boards. The
idea of collaborative, flexible study spaces, where students are able to work
together, have been the main focus of recent updates to library spaces over the
last 10 years. As other researchers have noted, these spaces support student
learning, including collaboration, social learning, and alone-together study
(Cha & Kim, 2015; Given & Archibald, 2015; Khoo et al., 2014; Ojennus
& Watts, 2017). Interestingly, focus group participants repeatedly said
they like the group work stations for completing group work, yet users were
rarely using these tables as intended during sweeps. More often, users at these
tables used the integrated outlets to power their laptops, leading the research
team to believe students like these tables more for their outlets and less for
the ability to share a screen.
Demand
for a stress relief room and nap pods signals that while users come for serious
work, they feel the library should, or could, serve as a comfortable, relaxing
environment, indicative of the “third space” discussed by DeClercq and Cranz
(2014). Focus group and survey results revealed undergraduates frequently come
to the library before classes or after dinner for printing and academic work,
while they come in between classes for group work and socializing. Despite low
participation in focus groups, graduate students unsurprisingly indicated their
use of library spaces is almost wholly academic, citing a need for quiet and a
fondness for academic-oriented library services. Students’ motivations for
library use need to be considered for any library planning renovations and new
services, especially when faced with increasingly diverse student populations.
This is something Lavery Library must take into account given our increasing
graduate population.
Space Attributes
Students
use library spaces for a variety of reasons; most commonly, data revealed users
come to the library for academic work. Space needs differ among users and are
often task-dependent, with both individual and group work requiring a variety
of furniture options. Independent of group or individual study spaces, more
table and seating options are a common theme within focus groups and survey
findings, aligning our students’ desires with other research on space
attributes (Cha & Kim, 2015; İmamoğlu & Gürel, 2016; Khoo et al., 2014;
Khoo, Rozaklis, Hall, & Kusunoki, 2016; Montgomery, 2014; Vaska et al., 2009).
Regardless of space preferences (i.e., quiet vs. non-quiet), users consistently
and whenever possible need additional outlets, aligning with research regarding
the need for additional power to accommodate technologies (DeClercq &
Cranz, 2014; İmamoğlu & Gürel, 2016; Khoo et al., 2014; Montgomery, 2014;
Vaska et al., 2009). The need for more outlets, aside from the building’s age,
may stem from multiple, simultaneous device use (i.e., laptop, cell phone,
desktop) found in sweeps data. Builders in 1974 could not have predicted the
pervasiveness of technology today, but future renovations must address power
capacity.
The
library’s main level is a mix of desktop computer pods, group workstations,
lounge furniture, and other flexible spaces, and is frequently abuzz with
students working on group projects, studying together, and socializing. It is
also where the Checkout Desk and Research Help Desk are located; these two
desks are frequently busy with library users seeking assistance with research,
utilizing technology, checking out materials, and performing other activities.
The main level is certainly what Freeman (2005) would consider “the sound of
learning” (p. 5), with sweeps, focus groups, and survey responses indicating
the library is used frequently for group work. However, the main level does
have its drawbacks for group work. For example, it is possible group
workstations are not as frequently used as intended due to a lack of privacy.
Based on focus group findings, group workspaces should be addressed in library
renovations, specifically the addition of break-out rooms or other semi-private
spaces with soundproofing.
Particularly
surprising throughout all phases of research is the under-use of the lower
level. This is a mixed-use, flexible space where talking is allowed, but is
typically quieter than the main level. Occupancy during sweeps was less than 1%
and students rarely mentioned the lower level during focus groups. This trend
continued in survey responses, with approximately 50% of respondents “never” going
to any lower level spaces (i.e., “Basement- computer lab” and “Basement-
tables”). Understanding why students are not using this available space would
be extremely valuable. As Khoo et al.(2016) mentions, spaces without defined
use conventions are considered full when they are relatively unoccupied, as
individuals are unlikely to join a space already occupied by another
individual. In the case of the lower level, this might be doubly true, as the
classrooms on this level are not commonly used outside of instruction and
students may be unaware of when they are able to, or not able to, use these
rooms. Other factors contributing to underuse could be the lack of natural
lighting, undefined policies regarding noise, and temperature. The only
available lighting in the lower level is fluorescent lighting; there are no
desk lamps and only one semi-hidden space with windows. While the only
designated quiet space in the library is the upper level, the lower level is
much quieter than the main level. Lastly, underuse may be a result of
temperature variance, something noted in the focus groups and survey findings.
As
with other research (Cha & Kim, 2015; DeClercq & Cranz, 2014; Freeman,
2005; Khoo et al., 2014, Khoo et al., 2016), our students are looking for a
quiet space to “get serious” (e.g., write research papers). This is especially
true for masters and doctoral students, including one doctoral student wishing
the library would be more like a neighboring academic library, where the entire
space is quiet. This population’s need for quiet space may stem from different
academic requirements (e.g., dissertation research), or the need for quiet
space outside of home or work. Not surprisingly, many undergraduates indicated
a desire for quiet space as well, specifically when concentration is required,
as the library main level can be noisy. What is particularly interesting,
especially in lieu of survey results, is upper level sweeps have only about 20%
occupancy, even during peak usage. It is possible students see the space as
full at 20% occupancy, rather than the 40-50% reported in other literature
(Applegate, 2009; İmamoğlu & Gürel, 2016; Khoo et al., 2016). For example,
once a study room has one person using the space it is considered full, even
though there may be 2-3 available chairs in the room. Similarly, as noted in
the sweeps and focus groups, a single student may use an entire four-person
table, making the space full with only one occupant. İmamoğlu and Gürel (2016)
write about territorial dividers as a way to maintain personal space, and
something focus group participants mentioned wanting were smaller, individual
work tables in place of the large four-person tables currently available. This
follows trends for communal study, or alone-together study, where students seek
silence lacking in other areas (e.g., dorm rooms, classrooms, residence hall
lounges, and others), but still want to be around others working on similar
tasks. It is clear from all three data points that quiet study space is highly
valued and sought after on campus, and the library, while providing some quiet,
still requires more to meet demand. This is consistent with recent literature
about growing demands for quiet spaces, and libraries should consider this
growing body of evidence as they plan for renovations.
Space-related services
While
not solely library-related, participants in all areas of research suggested the
library add café and stress-relief services. Café service was not surprising
given the percentage of people observed during sweeps with food or drink. As
the survey found, students frequently visit the library between classes and
throughout the day and Grab ‘n Go foods was rated highly as a need in the
survey (see Figure 2), having café access would benefit students. This leads
researchers to conclude current vending options are inadequate, including the
new single-serve coffee machine. Out of a specific request for nap pods within
the focus groups, student researchers included an option of “Stress relief room with nap pods/ massage
chairs/ stress relieving activities” for the survey question “I think the
library needs…” Surprising to librarian researchers, the request for stress
relief services came in second to “more quiet rooms.” Considering the other
spaces on campus in which students elect to study and complete work (e.g.,
cafés, residence hall lounges, and more), the desire for space-related
services, including Grab ‘n Go foods and stress relief rooms, is very
important.
Extended
hours and interlibrary loan are two other services frequently mentioned in both
the focus groups and survey. The request for extended hours has persisted for
years, and the library has adjusted hours to open earlier and close later on
weekends, including staying open until 2 A.M. during the last two weeks of the
semester. The study did not determine what extended hours would mean to users,
but existing headcount data does not support a need for extended hours. We
acknowledge this could be due to students knowing the library is closing, and
therefore moving to an alternate location long before closing. Unrelated to
library space, praise for interlibrary loan was common throughout all user
types in the focus groups. Researchers are unsure why this service connects to
library spaces for users, though it is possible students have picked up
physical interlibrary loan materials at the Checkout Desk, or focus group
questions about space-related library services evoked positive feelings toward
this service.
Limitations
The
researchers acknowledge this research had limitations. Multiple recorders’
interpretations during the seating sweeps may influence data. The librarians
conducting the research tried to mitigate this by training staff recorders with
a shared understanding of what to record.
Due
to low focus group participation, masters and doctoral students were not
surveyed. Similarly, a purposeful decision to exclude demographics was made to
shorten the survey. Therefore, researchers are unable to relate survey
responses back to specific demographic traits (e.g., commuter vs. residential,
class level), which may have proved valuable for understanding how different
student groups use library spaces.
Future Research
Future
space studies should investigate students’ need for quiet study spaces, and how
libraries may provide these spaces to their students. The need for quiet space
may signify a change from previous trends regarding redesigned library spaces.
In small academic libraries, would it better serve students to have more quiet
spaces than collaborative spaces, since the latter can be found other places on
campus? It is also worth exploring students’ use of undefined spaces, which may
be common in academic libraries.
Acknowledgements
The
authors would like to acknowledge others that were instrumental to the success
of this library space study: Faculty Advisers: Patricia Tweet, PhD and David
Baronov, PhD; Student Researchers: Mollie Flynn and Caroline Villa; and Library
staff members: Kate Ross, Marianne Simmons, Brian Lynch, Lynn Seavy, Stacy
Celata, and Britta Stackwick.
References
Andrews, C.,
Wright, S. E., & Raskin, H. (2015). Library learning spaces: Investigating
libraries and investing in student feedback. Journal of Library Administration, 56, 647-672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1105556
Applegate, R.
(2009). The library is for studying: Student preference for study space. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35, 341-346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.04.004
Cha, S. H., & Kim, T. W. (2015). What matters for students’ use of
physical library space? The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 41, 274-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.014
DeClercq, C. P.,
& Cranz, G. (2014). Moving beyond seating-centered learning environments:
Opportunities and challenges identified in a POE of a campus library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 574-584.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.08.005
Ellison, W.
(2016). Designing the learning spaces of a university library. New Library World, 117, 294-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NLW-01-2016-0006
Fallin, L.
(2016). Beyond books: The concept of the academic library as learning space. New Library World, 117, 308-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NLW-10-2015-0079
Freeman, G. T.
(2005). The library as place: Changes in learning patterns, collections,
technology, and use. In Library as Place:
Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space (pp. 1-10). Council on Library
Resources: Washington, DC.
Given, L. M.,
& Archibald, H. (2015). Visual traffic sweeps (VTS): A research method for
mapping user activities in the library space. Library & Information Science Research, 37, 100-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.02.005
Given, L. M.,
& Leckie, G. L. (2003). “Sweeping” the library: Mapping the social activity
space of the public library. Library
& Information Science Research, 25, 365-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(03)00049-5
Goodnight, C.,
& Jeitner, E. (2016). Sending out an SOS: Being mindful of students’ need
for quiet study spaces. In S. S. Hines & K. M. Crowe (Eds.), The Future of Library Spaces (Vol. 36,
pp. 103-129). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0732-067120160000036010
Hall, K., &
Kapa, D. (2015). Silent and independent: Student use of academic library study
space. Partnership: The Canadian Journal
of Library and Information Practice and Research, 10(1), 1-38.
Hanson, A.,
& Abresch, J. (2016). Socially constructing library as place and space. In
S. S. Hines & K. M. Crowe (Eds.), The
Future of Library Spaces (Vol. 36, pp. 103-129). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0732-067120160000036004
İmamoğlu, Ç.,
& Gürel, M. Ö. (2016). “Good fences make good neighbors”: Territorial
dividers increase user satisfaction and efficiency in library study spaces. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42, 65-73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.10.009
Khoo, M.,
Rozaklis, L., Hall, C., & Kusunoki, D. (2016). “A really nice spot”:
Evaluating place, space, and technology in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 77,
51-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.51
Khoo, M.,
Rozaklis, L., Hall, C., Kusunoki, D., & Rehrig, M. (2014). Heat map visualization of seating patterns
in an academic library. In iConference 2014 Proceedings (p. 612-620). http://dx.doi.org/10.9776/14274
Lux, V., Snyder, R. J., & Boff, C. (2016). Why users come
to the library: A case study of library and non-library units. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42, 109-117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004
Montgomery, S.
E. (2014). Library space assessment: User learning behaviors in the library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 70-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.11.003
Montgomery, S.
E., & Miller, J. (2011). The third place: The library as collaborative and
community space in a time of fiscal restraints. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 18, 228-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2011.577683
Ojennus, P.,
& Watts, K. A. (2017). User preferences and library space at Whitworth
University Library. Journal of Library
and Information Sciences, 49, 320-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000615592947
Oldenburg, R.
(1997). Making college a great place to talk. In G. Keller (Ed.), The best of planning for higher education (pp.
90-94). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Oliveira, S. M.
(2016). Space preference at James White Library: What students really want. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42, 355-367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.05.009
Vaska, M., Chan,
R., & Powelson, S. (2009). Results of a user survey to determine needs for
a health sciences library renovation. New
Review of Academic Librarianship, 15, 219-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13612530903240635
