Report on Results of Library Use and User Satisfaction Survey at Stanford, May 2003

1. Report on Results of Library Use and User Satisfaction Survey at Stanford, May 2003 Submitted, August 1, 2003, by Anthony M. Angiletta, Chris Bourg and Ron Nakao

2. Introduction • Last survey of L&IR done in 1987 • All-campus survey of 17,295 Faculty, Graduate and Professional Students, Post-docs/RAs and Undergradraduates • Response rate: 26.4%

3. Chart 1: Importance or Value of E-Mail, 1987 and 2003

4. Table 1. Participation Rates in All-Campus Libraries Survey, 2003

5. Survey purposes • To identify levels and patterns of use of libraries and information resources • To identify levels of satisfaction with libraries and information resources • To identify user-based priorities for libraries and information resources

6. Summary Findings: Use Patterns and User Satisfaction • High level of satisfaction with library services, collections and staff

7. Chart 2: Library Services Satisfaction Question: How SATISFIED are you overall with… library services?

8. Chart 3: Library Collections Satisfaction Question: How SATISFIED are you overall with… library collections?

9. Chart 4: Satisfaction with Library Staff Question: How satisfied are overall with…Library staff?

10. Summary Findings: Use Patterns and User Satisfaction • “Four-walled” library remains relevant

11. Chart 5: “Four-Walled Library": Physical Resources Question: How important are the following sources of information for your work?Choice: Stanford Library physical resources (books, journals, etc.)?

12. Chart 6: “Four-Walled Library: Visits Question: How OFTEN do you make use of the Stanford library resources in the following ways:Choice: Visit one of the libraries in person

13. Summary Findings: Use Patterns and User Satisfaction • The “book” remains important

14. Chart 7: Importance of Books: Faculty By division, % of faculty respondents indicating books are "very important" or "important" vs. "not at all important“ or "not important"

15. Chart 8: Importance of Books to Graduate/Professional Students

16. Summary Findings (cont’d) • Hours count --77% Faculty satisfied with hours during academic year --less than 50% satisfied with Intersession hours --24% dissatisfied

17. Chart 9: Hours : Evenings and Weekends Question: How satisfied are you with hours during the periods indicated?

18. Chart 10: Hours Satisfaction: Intersession Question: How satisfied are you with hours during the periods indicated?

19. Summary Findings (cont’d) • Hours count:Winter Intersession, 2002-2003 --26% of Faculty and 24% of Grad Students affected by Winter Intersession closure --84 faculty and 541 grad students made comments on Winter Intersession closing

20. Chart 11: Effect of Winter Intersession Closures, 2002-2003 Question: Were you affected by the…closures?

21. Chart 12: Faculty Affected by Closure by Division

22. Chart 13: Graduate Students affected by Closure by School

23. Open-ended Comments on Hours: Faculty • 147 of 372 faculty respondents (40%) commented. • 19 (5%) said hours are fine. • 22 (6%) said they only use on-line library • 12 (3%) said hours are not a problem due to 24 hour key access • 27 (7%) said weekend hours are too short • 13 (3%) said evening hours are too short • 54 (15%) said holiday/intersession/summer hours are too short

24. A Sampling of Hours Comments: Faculty “I thought it was disgraceful, even for budgetary reasons, to close the library over winter intersession.” “This year, for whatever reasons, there was a cut-back on hours over the Winter Break and at other times. The Library is an essential resource for faculty and graduate students, and a great university needs a library that maximizes its availability to faculty, graduate students, and other researchers. I think Stanford has done less than well on this score. This is not an abstract comment. The library's hours impact on the ability of people to do the work required of them by their departments and the university. Less than maximum availability to the library is equivalent to closing labs to scientists at certain periods. There is no difference, except that scientists bring in lots of money and evidently humanists and social scientists are deemed less important in terms of access to their "lab" for reasons extraneous to their work. This is a personal comment, of course, but I have heard similar comments from many faculty members, whether they express it in this medium or not.” “It would be great if Terman Engineering library could be open on weekends.”

25. Summary Findings (cont’d) • Online library resourceshave become integral to the work of faculty and students • Other faculty resources remain relevant

26. Chart 14: Importance of Library resources by degree: All respondents

27. Chart 15: Importance of Library online resources by degree: Faculty

28. Chart 16: Import of resource types for Faculty work: Percent "important" or "very important"

29. Summary Findings (cont’d) • Remote access to libraries resources is prevalent --89% of faculty and 70% of graduate students use office, home or other computers to access library resources at least once per week

30. Summary Findings (cont’d) • What do faculty seek or do most often?

31. Chart 17: Remote types of use or information-seeking: Faculty Note: Socrates, E-journals, Indexes = Once/week or more; other = Once/Quarter or more

32. Summary Findings (cont’d) • Importance of e-journals

33. Chart 18: Importance of E-Journals: Faculty

34. Summary Findings: User Priorities • Providing access to electronic resources of all kinds emerged as the most widely listed choice as a top priority • 82% of faculty selections • 87% of graduate student selections • 71% of undergraduate selections • 98% of post-doctoral appointees and RA selections

35. Summary Findings: User Priorities • Maintenance of the quality and quantity of print collections emerged as the second most widely listed choice as a top priority • 70% of faculty selections • 65% of graduate student selections • 61% of undergraduate selections • 67% of post-doctoral appointees and RA selections

36. Table Two. Top Priorities Cited by Respondents by Academic Area and Status

37. Open-ended Comments on Priorities: Faculty • 19% of Faculty commented on priorities • Range of diverse topics: from cleaner toilets to transformation of structure of scholarly publishing • Largest number of comments complementary to closed-ended findings on priorities -- 19 comments on electronic access, e-journals and digitization -- 16 comments on maintenance or expansion of print resources -- 6 comments on storage of print collections -- 4 comments on media collections access and expansion • Diverse set of 17 comments on services and staff

38. A Sampling of Priorities Comments • “E-journals are by far the most important”. • “My top priority is maintaining the print collection”. • “Scanning older journals so they are available online.” • “Keep all print collections on campus.” • “Combined Science library in Old Chem.” • “[E]nsuring…that a science library does not replace Swain, Falconer, etc.” • “Providing research assistance to faculty.” • “Get the students to use the library, they think everything important is online; i.e., outreach to undergraduates.”

39. Summary Findings: Budget Reductions • 8 contingent budget reduction choices • 76% favor cancellation of print journals where electronic available (problems with this?) • Use--not cost--primary element in journal cancellation

40. Chart 19: Budget Reduction Scenarios: All

41. Additional Open-ended Comments: Faculty • 23% of Faculty took opportunity at close of Survey to make additional comments on the Libraries and Academic Computing • Range of diverse topics, ranging from praise for specific libraries or named librarians to advocacy of open standards. Including, inter alia: • 26 comments on electronic access, e-journals and digitization • 12 comments on print and media resources • 12 comments on staff and services • 7 comments on Branch and Coordinate Libraries • 6 comments on Socrates • 6 comments on multiple dimensions, including tensions between print and electronic

42. A Sampling of Additional Comments • “More emphasis on print; less on electronic.” • “On line access to materials is revolutionary. All else is minor in comparison.” •“If Socrates were easier and more satisfactory to use, all the other computer offerings would be more helpful.” •“This survey bothers me, since it is biased to those who are willing to deal with this stuff electronically. In general, I have a feeling that people who enjoy books, wandering in the stacks, and working with hard copy materials are treated like smokers, when, in point of fact there is nothing unhealthy or outdated about books and printed materials. Attempts to get this survey in hard copy did not work. I hate working on a computer. I spend far too much time as it is communicating and living in front of a screen. For Pete's sake, let's not turn our libraries into places where books, newspapers, and journals in printed form disappear.” • “ Storing books in Livermore when Stanford has so much land is absurd.”

43. Conclusions (cont’d) • “Both/and” dilemma • Clear value placed on electronic resources

44. Chart 20: Electronic Resources Value: All

45. Conclusions (cont’d) • To come: possible focus group or interview follow-ups