College and Research Libraries The Humanistic Scholars Project: A Study of Attitudes and Behavior Concerning Collection Storage and Technology Wendy P. Lougee, Mark Sandler, and Linda L. Parker An assessment of humanist research behaviors and attitudes toward remote storage of collec- tions and technology was conducted at the University of Michigan Library. In an attempt to attenuate negative attitudes toward remote shelving through enhanced bibliographic access, project participants were given direct access to online systems containing records for stored titles. Results suggested this specific intervention was not successful given negative attitudes toward technology. However, attitudes toward the Library grew more positive and increased use of the remote shelving facility was reported. Findings are interpreted in terms of faculty- librarian interactions and faculty acceptance of library programs. II emote storage of library collec- tions is both a long-standing is- sue and a growing phenome- non. Libraries have long pondered the use of remotely housed col- lections and how best to select materials for those collections. 1 During the halcyon days when new construction projects were prevalent, issues of remote storage were less pressing and libraries focused on expanding collections within open stack facilities. But as these boom days waned, libraries once again faced the un- popular decision to develop more eco- nomical facilities. While permanent, closed-access facilities for books are not in- expensive, cost studies of storage utilizing a closed-access organization show a sig- nificant savings over the cost of conven- tional, open-access shelving. 2 Several studies conducted in the 1970s pointed to the problems experienced by li- braries as they implemented collection storage programs. A 1974 study revealed that of 105libraries, 37 were storing signif- icant portions of their collection and 13 more said that storage was imminent. The same survey suggested few libraries had guidelines for book storage, and few had developed procedures for complete rec- ord keeping. 3 A more recent survey of storage programs of 22 research libraries conducted by the Association for Research Libraries in 1977 reported little uniformity among libraries in terms of criteria for se- lecting materials for storage, document Wendy P. Lougee, is Head, Graduate Library and Mark Sandler is Coordinator, Graduate Library Collection, at the University of Michigan, Ann AJ!bor, Michigan 48109-1205. Linda L. Parker is Chair, Central References Services, at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0410. The authors wish to thank project consul- tants Dr. Margaret Taylor and Dr. Elaine Hochman for their assistance in project design and data analysis. Fund- ing for the project was provided by the Council on Library Resources and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. 231 232 College & Research Libraries delivery, bibliographic access, or preser- vation. Another point was the distinct lack of information that could be used by a manager in planning for an optimal stor- age facility. More specifically, there is an absence of reported efforts to analyze user attitudes toward storage. 4 One common theme precedes the litera- ture on remote storage of collections: re- mote storage is an unpopular and often- times untenable solution for scholars. Storage in a remote facility leads to dis- agreements on which books should be stored, time lags for delivery, loss of the opportunity to browse the shelves, prob- lems in accurate bibliographic access, and deterioration of books as a result of inade- quate environmental controls in the stor- age facility. The concept of remote storage of collections has often been most vigor- ously opposed by scholars in the humani- ties. Perhaps chief among the complaints raised by humanists is the use of book se- lection criteria based on age or frequency of use. Because the humanities tend tore- examine the classics with every genera- tion, storage selection models based upon use criteria frequently do not appear rele- vant to humanities disciplines. Given the nature of research strategies in the humanities, it is quite understand- able that humanists should resist remote storage of library collections. Studies on the research patterns of humanists indi- cate that they differ from their colleagues in the sciences or social sciences in their approach to information, age and form of material used, and the extent of immedi- ate contact with other researchers. 6 Docu- mentation of research behaviors of hu- manists also suggests other characteristics that may be antithetical to using remote collections, e.g., an inclination to work alone, a lack of delegation of their litera- ture searching, and a reliance on browsing as a critical strategy in indentifying the materials of research. 7 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PROGRAM The remote shelving program of the University of Michigan has attempted to ameliorate many of the negative associa- tions with storage. The Buhr Shelving Fa- May1990 cility, opened in 1981, has a closed access, compact shelving arrangement and is en- vironmentally controlled for temperature and humidity. Records are created for stored items in the library's online system. Delivery turnaround has typically been within one day, and reading and photo- copy facilities are provided on-site. In ad- dition, the storage collection is considered dynamic and volumes can be returned to open stacks if use patterns change. 11To assess the effectiveness of the Michigan program, the library pro- posed to investigate the attitudinal factors surrounding humanistic fac- ulty's acceptance of remotely shelved collections.'' To assess the effectiveness of the Michi- gan program, the library proposed to in- vestigate the attitudinal factors surround- ing humanistic faculty's acceptance of remotely shelved collections. Further, with funding from the Council on Library Resources and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the library also proposed to assess whether attitudes could be im- proved by creating machine-readable cat- aloging records for remotely shelved items in relevant disciplines and by pro- viding enhanced bibliographic access through RLIN, the online system of the Research Libraries Group that is used by Michigan for cataloging. Access to RUN in the academic departments provided an opportunity to analyze a number of inter- esting issues surrounding the larger ques- tions of immediate physical availability of collections vs. less proximate forms of ac- cess, e.g., remote shelving, interlibrary loan or surrogate microformats. The Humanistic Scholars Project began in January 1983 and ended in December 1985. The study population was com- posed of 212 faculty in the departments of English anq History and the American Culture program. The study was subse- quently extended to include 254 graduate students in the same departments. This grant funding enabled the library to create approximately 50,000 machine-readable records in RUN, supporting the effort to measure effects of increased bibliographic access upon attitudes toward remote shelving. In addition to the information concern- ing attitudes toward remote shelving, the project accumulated information that may provide direction for future programs in research libraries. Specifically, the follow- ing issues were examined: 1. alterations in humanistic research strategies brought about by changes in li- brary programs and services, e.g., preser- vation, technology, and remotely housed collections; 2. use patterns of humanities materials in remotely shelved collections; 3. general library use patterns that may suggest policies for future selection of ti- tles for remote shelving and for retrospec- tive record conversion projects; 4. the effect of patron access to online systems on research behaviors and atti- tudes; 5. training strategies for online sys- tems; and 6. characteristics of humanities re- searchers that suggest strategies for future library programs. METHODOLOGY The Humanistic Scholars Project in- cluded three major efforts: (1) record con- version activities, (2) creation of an in- structional/outreach program and its evaluation, and (3) administration of a survey to faculty and graduate students in participating departments. Record Conversion The creation of machine-readable rec- ords in RLIN was a significant component of the Humanistic Scholars Project. Con- centrating on the subject areas most heav- ily used by the scholars in our study popu- lation, titles from the relevant classifica- tions housed in the Buhr Facility were se- lected for conversion in RLIN. All titles in storage were also reflected in Geac, the li- brary's online circulation system. As a result, project participants had sophisti- cated bibliographic ·access to a select group Humanistic Scholars Project 233 of relevant titles from storage through RLIN and author/title/call number access to all stored titles via Geac. Three RUN terminals were installed in the English and History Departments and in a library classroom for use by project participants. These terminals were avail- able through December 1985. RLIN Training The training component of the project called for individual and group sessions with faculty members and graduate stu- dents to demonstrate RLIN' s general ca- pabilities and its possible applications in the humanities, including online access to materials at Buhr. During the planning phase, a package of instructional materials was designed that was appropriate to this unique audience and consistent with the hypotheses of the grant. Through direct mailings, posted announcements, news- letters, and general user education activi- ties conducted by the Graduate Library Reference staff, faculty and student partic- ipation was encouraged. Finally, evalua- tion forms were devised to monitor the ef- fectiveness of both the trainers and the instructional materials. The group reflected a wide range of ex- perience with computers. While many of those trained were complete novices, at least ten percent of the faculty who were trained were owners of microcomputers and thus came to RLIN with some under- standing of both the advantages and limi- tations of this technology. The project em- ployed a graduated set of training materials that moved from the very basic to the sophisticated with the explp.nations and illustrations drawn from the humani- ties wherever possible. Comments from the faculty training evaluation forms indicated a generally positive response to the program and to RLIN as a research tool, although the statements also reflected perceptions of RLIN' s shortcomings. Sample comments from these evaluations that reflect the range of reactions include the following: A convenient way to check bibliographic cita- tions and footnotes in proofreading my publica- tions. On the occasions when I do need to find current works in fields outside of my specialty, I 234 College & Research Libraries anticipate it will be very useful especially by us- ing combined topic headings-something I couldn't do in a regular catalog. I found the system useful for confirming things I knew or partly knew, but not useful for dis- covery. Useful not only in research but in the organiza- tion of new courses. My lack of use is mainly because I have a fairly good command of the sources I most regularly use. The database has not revealed much that is new to me. Perhaps when the terminals are more ubiquitous and the database is larger, I will have more reason to use it with regularity. Advanced training sessions were of- fered to the faculty in Winter 1984. In addi- tion, a newsletter was produced to foster awareness of and continued participation in the project. Survey Design During the summer of 1983, the project staff worked simultaneously on the de- sign of the first questionnaire and on the training program, both of which were to be administered in the Fall1983 academic term. The purpose of the first question- naire was to measure faculty attitudes and use patterns prior to the intervention of the project. The questionnaire included three com- ponents: a section on current library use, a section to gather demographic informa- tion, and a series of attitudinal statements. During the Fall 1983 term, 212 question- naires were mailed to faculty members in English, History, and American Culture, of which 119 were returned, a response rate of 56 percent. Eighty-eight faculty members subsequently participated in the RLIN training sessions. The project was later expanded to include graduate stu- dents in these three academic programs. When the availability of RLIN ended, the faculty and students were again sur- veyed. The second questionnaire dupli- cated the majority of the initial questions but also included questions regarding li- brary services initiated in the intervening years (e.g., public access to the Geac circu- lation system) that might have affected be- havior and attitudes. In December 1985, 195 questionnaires were mailed to the fac- ulty with a response rate of 41 percent. May 1990 SURVEY RESULTS Population At the outset, a few generalizations about the sample population can be of- fered based on the data from the com- pleted questionnaires. The faculty respon- dents to the first questionnaire were predominantly male senior faculty at the rank of full professor, over 40, tenured, and with the University for 10 years or more. Forty-four percent were in the Eng- lish Department, 31 percent in History and 25 percent in the American Culture program (more detailed information about the samples, reflecting respondents to the first questionnaire, is shown in ap- pendix A). No significant differences in population characteristics were detected in the sample populations responding to the first and second administrations of the questionnaire. Both the first and second questionnaires included a series of behavioral questions regarding the respondents' use of the li- brary and its materials and services, as well as attitudinal questions about library storage and technology. Unless otherwise noted, the analysis of the research behav- ior questions reported below is based upon faculty responses to the first ques- tionnaire only, while the attitudinal re- sponses are compared across the two ad- ministrations of the questionnaire. ''Humanities scholars involved in the project were heavy library users; the modal response (57.6 percent) was weekly use of the central human- ities and social science library. 11 BEHAVIORAL MEASURES Library and Computerized Access The two surveys provided a wealth of information about research behaviors and library use. In general, it was clear that the humanities scholars involved in the proj- ect were heavy library users; the modal re- sponse (57.6 percent) was weekly use of the central humanities and social science library. Although no significant difference by rank was found, assistant and associate professors were more likely to report daily use of the library (22.2 percent and 30.8 percent respectively) than their full pro- fessor colleagues (14.3 percent). Higher- ranked faculty were more likely to report having checked out large numbers of vol- umes, yet there was also a negative rela- tionship within the senior ranks between faculty age and the number of items checked out. Respondents typically reported that they "very often" or "often" work alone (96 percent), gather their own biblio- graphic citations (78 precent) and retrieve their own materials (87 percent). In gen- eral, there was modest use reported by all categories of faculty for library service points (e.g., catalog information, govern- ment documents center, reference desk). A majority of respondents indicated that they ''never'' used online databases or online utilities such as RLIN or OCLC in the library. The data did reveal a signifi- cant inverse relationship between age and the use of automation; younger faculty (aged 20 to 40 years) were significantly more likely than their older counterparts to use both online databases (i=34.67, p<.01) and RLIN/OCLC (x2 =24.84, p<.05). Use of Remote Collections The survey prompted the faculty to de- scribe their use of remote collections (i.e., interlibrary loan or the Buhr Shelving Fa- cility) as well as reasons for not using these services. For both interlibrary loan and retrieval from the Buhr facility, the majority of respondents indicated that these services were not used because the services were not needed. The questions related to the Buhr facility also give some indication of the perceived effectiveness of the remote shelving program. As noted above, the most common reason given for not using the Buhr facility was that items held there were not needed, followed in order of frequency by "retrieval takes too long," "too difficult to determine what is in storage,'' and 11 unaware of library stor- age collection." A similar response pat- tern was elicited in the second question- naire, although significantly fewer Humanistic Scholars Project 235 respondents indicated that retrieval of Buhr volumes takes too long (5.1 percent in 1985 as compared with 20.2 percent in 1983). The most extensive use of the Buhr Shelving Facility was concentrated among associate professors. This rank was also the most likely to report that the retrieval process took too long and that it was diffi- cult to determine which items were shelved at Buhr. Although only a few fac- ulty members reported that they were un- aware of Buhr (4.3 percent), those choos- ing this response were concentrated in the more junior ranks. Bibliographic Sources and Computer Use The survey population was asked how frequently they used particular sources of bibliographic information. The most fre- quently cited bibliographic sources for which some regular use was indicated (i.e., excluding response "never" and "rarely") were the card catalog (97 per- cent) and citations in books and articles (96 percent). Other commonly cited means of identifying relevant materials were in- dexes and abstr;:tcts (74 percent), browsing the open stacks (83 percent), subject bibli- ographies (86 percent), and book reviews (90 percent). The least used sources were computerized databases and librarians. Age and rank did not prove to be good predictors of use of particular tools, but those at the lower ranks tended to use a wider array of sources more intensively than their senior colleagues. Another sug- gestive finding was that female faculty were more likely than males to report reli- ance upon colleagues, conferences, and li- brarians as sources of bibliographic infor- mation. Gender also proved to be related significantly to computer use; more women (30.6 percent) than men (16.2 per- cent) reported use of both mainframe and microcomputing systems (p < .05). RLINUse Those individuals who responded to the second questionnaire were asked about their use of RLIN following training. Of the 78 individuals responding, 48 indi- cated that they were trained to use RLIN and 31 respondents actually used RLIN subsequent to training. The two most 236 College & Research Libraries commonly cited reasons for nonuse of RLIN were that they ''did not believe RLIN would benefit their work'' ( 49 per- cent) or that they "preferred to use the card catalog" (51 percent). The forty-eight faculty who did use RLIN were asked what system character- istics they found most desirable. The fact that they could obtain information about collections at other universities (67 per- cent), the ability to compile a quick bibli- ography (44 percent), and the ability to search by key words (40 percent) were most frequently cited as desirable attrib- utes. Interestingly, only two individuals indicated that they liked RLIN because of the ability to search the library's serials records, all of which are contained within the database. The two major reasons checked to indi- cate why respondents did not like RUN were that they used it so infrequently that they forgot the commands or that it did not contain sufficient records for items in the Buhr Shelving Facility. Finally, the 78 faculty respondents to the second questionnaire were asked to select from a list of twelve possible effects those that best indicated how their in- volvement in the Humanistic Scholars Project had impacted their work. Respon- dents could select more than one effect. In general, the most frequent response was that there was no impact on work or be- havior, although those respondents who had used RLIN were significantly more likely to report that the Humanistic Scholars Program had an impact on their work (F statistic = 33.226, p < .01). ATTITUDINAL MEASURES The questionnaire included thirty-one attitudinal statements that formed three distinct scales: attitude toward remote shelving (storage), attitude toward tech- nology, and attitude toward the Library. For each attitudinal statement, respon- dents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement along a five-point contin- uum ranging from ''strongly disagree'' to "strongly agree." Items were randomly distributed in the attitude portion of the questionnaire and their directionality was varied to minimize response bias. Factor May1990 analysis was performed to ensure the reli- ability of the three scales and the results showed acceptable levels of correlation among the scaled items. The three scales and the individual statements are listed in appendix B. Analysis of the attitudinal portion of the questionnaire focused on the relationship of the responses to the demographic and behavioral factors described above (except where noted the following analysis fo- cuses on responses to the first administra- tion of the questionnaire). Means were calculated based upon the assumption that respondents viewed the five points on the scales as equidistant and distrib- uted about a neutral point of 3.0. The anal- ysis showed that overall the most positive attitudes were recorded on the ''Library'' scale (3.86), followed respectively by the scales for "technology" (3.76), and "re- mote shelving'' (3.19). The mean score for each of the scales was above the neutral point, indicating overall favorable atti- tudes toward each of the three factors. Remote Shelving Thirteen attitudinal questions were combined to form a single scale measuring degrees of acceptance or rejection of re- mote shelving (storage). Age and rank did not prove to be related significantly to storage attitudes, but there was a ten- dency for older and more senior faculty to hold more positive attitudes toward the concept of remote shelving (t-value = 2.0754, p < .05). Not surprisingly, there was a significant inverse relationship (r = -.39) between stated preference for brows- ing at the shelves and attitudes toward storage. Those stating in the behavioral section of the questionnaire that retrieval from Buhr was either ''too hard'' or ''too slow'' scored significantly lower on the remote shelving attitude scale than those choos- ing other responses (p < .01). Those not needing Buhr items were likely to have more positive attitudes toward remote shelving. The introduction of library technology (RLIN) does not appear to have had an ef- fect upon either reported use of or atti- tudes toward remote shelving-that is, ''The introduction of library technol- ogy (RLIN) does not appear to have had an effect upon either reported use of or attitudes toward remote shelving." the availability of this enhanced access tool did not significantly alter faculty atti- tudes toward storage. Interestingly, there did not appear to be a relationship between those faculty who indicated two or more reasons for infre- quent use of the Buhr storage collection and their attitude toward storage. More specifically, the assumption that those with a larger number of negative percep- tions of the Buhr service (as reflected in two or three reasons for nonuse of the Buhr storage collection) might evidence more negative attitudes toward remote · shelving in general was not substantiated. A significant negative relationship (t- value = -2.9357,p< .01) was found, how- ever, between those listing two or more reasons for not using Buhr and their over- all attitude toward the library. One possi- ble interpretation is that those with anum- ber of reasons for not using Buhr tended to generalize their concern toward the li- brary rather than restricting their negative attitudes toward remote shelving alone. Technology Attitudes Technology attitudes were related to the use of computing resources. There was a significant positive relationship between use of more than one computing resource and positive attitude toward technology in general (t-value = 3.0873,p < .01). Rank and age also proved to be significantly re- lated to technology attitude. Older and more senior ranked faculty were more likely to express negative attitudes toward technology. Other suggestive findings in- clude the fact that faculty with overall pos- itive feelings about technology were more likely than others to work collaboratively and to rely upon peers for information. Not surprisingly, it is this group of faculty who reported higher use of RLIN. Humanistic Scholars Project 237 Library Attitudes Faculty giving overall positive re- sponses on library attitude statements were significantly more likely to be older and more advanced in rank (t-value = 3.2940, p < .01). This group indicated they were likely to have others gather citations for them, but subsequently came to re- trieve their own materials from the library. These faculty members with positive atti- tudes toward the library also showed low use of technology, suggesting an inverse relationship between these two factors (t- value = 3.7604, p < .01). Attitude Change Responses were analyzed for those fac- ulty completing both the first and second questionnaires (N =55) to measure attitu- dinal change in the two intervening years. Little change was noted in attitudes to- ward remote shelving or technology. A significant positive change, however, was noted in attitude toward the library (p < .01). While logically one might as- sume this change was an outgrowth of a positive experience with RLIN, subse- quent analysis showed that RUN users scored lower than nonusers on the library attitude scale. A more likely explanation for the overall improved attitude toward the library is that faculty members appre- ciated the initiatives taken by staff regard- less of whether they took advantage of the opportunity to use RUN. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS What conclusions can be drawn from these complex findings? First, the charac- teristics of the population suggest some changes in research behavior that are likely to emerge in the coming decade as a significant number of senior faculty be- come less active or retire. The cohort of as- sociate professors (or those roughly 31-40 years of age) uses the library most inten- sively and draws upon remotely housed collections most frequently. It is also this group that seems more inclined to try new methods of accessing bibliographic infor- mation such as library automation might afford. A second generalization suggested by the project results is that a technological 238 College & Research Libraries intervention for attenuating attitudes to- ward remote shelving may have been inef- fective given generally low levels of famil- iarity with computerized systems and the prevailing bias against technology at the time. As one faculty member commented, behaviors may change when terminals are more ubiquitous. At the time of the sur- vey, however, interactions with com- puters were infrequent and some human- ist faculty were wary. Further, because positive attitudes toward the library were associated with negative attitudes toward technology, we may have been trying to improve perceptions of library services such as remote shelving using an unat- tractive medium. Interestingly, those who were RLIN users actually had more nega- tive attitudes toward storage than their nonuser colleagues. One confounding aspect of the RLIN system that occurred during the project was the reconfiguration of the RUN data- base, no longer allowing a user to isolate easily the records of a single institution. One could argue that the lack of the de- sired impact of RUN on remote shelving attitudes was related to the inability to search readily (and browse) University of Michigan records. It was also clear from faculty responses that RLIN was per- ceived to be less than user friendly and this could have had an effect on partici- pant attitudes. Yet during the project the Library also brought up a publicly accessi- ble and easy-to-use local circulation sys- tem, Geac, and input into that database records for all items housed at Buhr. The second questionnaire included questions about use of Geac, yet no change in atti- tudes toward remote shelving was associ- ated with Geac use. Our findings suggest that Michigan's remote shelving facility, although not uni- versally accepted by faculty, has been suc- cessful. Overall attitude scores were above the neutral point, and responses to individual statements about the preserva- tion role of remote shelving reflected a ba- sic understanding of the rationale and im- perative of remotely shelved collections. Perceptions of retrieval time noticeably improved between the two surveys as well. Although RUN may not have ame- liorated negative attitudes, an increased May1990 use of Buhr was reported on the second questionnaire without attitudes becoming more negative. If nothing else, the pro- gram may have increased awareness of the Buhr Facility and methods of access. An indirect outcome of the Humanistic Scholars Project was an increase in atten- tion to and interaction with faculty. Not surprisingly, attitudes toward the library improved during the course of the project. Also, those who had others gather cita- tions and perform other front-end library work for them were more positive about the library. These findings reflect two principles libraries might consider in de- veloping programs for faculty. First, meaningful interactions and efforts to be- come involved in research strategies may have a halo effect on overall faculty sup- port of libraries. Secondly, efforts to re- move obstacles from library use or stream- line faculty-library interactions may also be advantageous. There are interesting questions that are yet unresolved concerning the immediate availability of materials. During 1986, the library implemented a document delivery program for faculty. Humanities scholars have proved to be among the heaviest us- ers. Will this service and its potential for making a remote location transparent for the user have an impact on acceptance of remote shelving? As libraries develop more extensive shared resources pro- grams, what will be the faculty reaction? Our findings suggest that faculty may re- ject such alternatives in principle but still become heavier and more effective users of remotely held resources. In the long run this outcome of making faculty more effec- tive researchers may result in improving attitudes. In the short run, however, it is perhaps too much to ask that faculty not only use a remotely housed collection but profess to like it as well. Library technology will increase dra- matically in the coming years-online cat- alogs, expert systems, textual datafiles. It is as yet unclear how various segments of the faculty will respond to these develop- ments. Our experiences during this pro- gram have provided no definitive answers to what the future holds. Yet, our finding that involvement with this program im- proved overall attitudes toward the li- brary, despite specific concerns about such issues as remote shelving and conve- nience of access, suggests a need for greater interaction between faculty and li- brary staff. It would appear that creating avenues for involvement and dialogue fosters a generally positive climate condu- cive to finding mutually acceptable solu- tions to library/research problems. Both li- Humanistic Scholars Project 239 brarians and faculty involved with the Humanistic Scholars Project claimed to gain a greater awareness and appreciation of the problems facing their counterparts. It is anticipated that this enhanced under- standing will result in the provision of bet- ter library service offered to a more sup- portive campus community. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. William E. Lane, "The Treatment of Books According to the Amount of Their Use," Library Journal 28:9 Ouly 1903); and Charles W. Eliot, "The Division of a Library into Books in Use and Books Not in Use, with Different Storage Methods for the Two Classes of Books," Library Journal27:51-56 Ouly 1902). 2. Ralph E. Ellsworth, The Economics of Book Storage in College and University Libraries (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1969). Other pertinent articles on storage of library materials include the following: John J. Boll, Shelf Browsing, Open Access and Storage Capacity in Research Libraries. Occasional Papers, No. 169 (Arlington, Va.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), ED 260 7211985); Gary S. Lawrence, "A Cost Model for Storage and Weeding Programs," College & Research Libraries 42:139-47 (March 1981); Richard A. Stayner, "Economic Characteristics of the Library Storage Problem,'' Library Quarterly 53:313-27 Ouly 1983). 3. George Piternick, Book Storage in Academic Libraries. A Report Submitted to the Council on Library Re· sources (Arlington, Va.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), ED 112 835, 1974). 4. Association of Research Libraries, Remote Storage, Systems and Procedures Exchange Center (SPEC) Kit 39 (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1977). 5. Herman H. Fussier and Julian L. Simon, Patterns in the Use of Books in Large Research Libraries (Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press, 1969). 6. Sue Stone, "Progress in Documentation-Humanities Scholars: Information Needs and Uses," Journal of Documentation 38, no. 4:292-313 (1982). 7. K.J. Weintraub, "The Humanistic Scholar and the Library," Library Quarterly 50, no.1:26 (1980). 8. Additional monographic titles in English language and literature were converted on other grant funds relevant to the Humanistic Scholars Project. Nearly all of the Library's serials records were converted using Title TIC funds. Of the 2,050,000 titles in the University Library collections, 275,000 titles (13 percent of the collection) were retrospectively converted. A total of 850,000 titles, or 40 percent of the collection's bibliographic records were in machine-readable form and thus available via RUN at the initiation of the project. In addition, RUN records were available through the Li- brary's publicly accessible circulation system, Geac, as were all Buhr titles. APPENDIX A. PROFILE OF SAMPLE POPULATION Category Female Male Missing Data Total Category Lecturer Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Total SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY SEX Number 19 98 _l 119 SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY RANK Number 5 18 26 _1Q 119 Percent 15.9 82.4 ___.LZ 100.0 Percent 4.2 15.1 21.9 58.8 100.0 240 College & Research Libraries May1990 Category Less than 30 years 31-40 41-50 51-70 Total SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY AGE Number 4 25 38 ~ 119 APPENDIX B: A TIITUDE STATEMENTS CLUSTERED BY SCALE Storage Percent 3.4 21.0 31.9 43.7 100.0 1. Microforms are an acceptable medium, given the necessity of preserving deteriorating books. 2. Library books in poor condition should be protected in a restricted area. 3. Finding relevant materials for research is hindered by the inability to browse shelves in library storage collections. 4. Lack of current use is a reasonable criterion for storing library materials. 5. The age of library materials is a reasonable criterion for removing materials to a restricted-access location. 6. Library materials should be immediately accessible to be useful for research. . 7. Storage of portions of the library's collections is a realistic solution to constraints of available space. 8. Borrowing books from non-UM libraries (i.e., interlibrary loan) is an acceptable method of obtain- ing materials for scholarly activities. 9. Storage of the library's collections undermines scholarship and research. 10. Microforms are a better solution to space constraints than storing library materials in closed-access stacks. 11. Placing library materials in storage does not significantly reduce a researcher's use of these items. 12. Microformats are an acceptable substitute for printed materials. 13. Geographic dispersion of library materials on campus presents obstacles for users. The Library 1. Library staff are a helpful source of information about library services and policies. 2. Card catalog entries provide too little information about library materials. 3. Library staff are an essential source of bibliographic information. 4. The Library presents obstacles for research and scholarship. 5. The Library provides critical support for research on campus. 6. Card catalogs are frustrating to use because of their complexity. Technology 1. Scholarly use of computers will have a positive effect on the academic environment. 2. Computers are too impersonal to be effective. 3. The emphasis on computers in universities will have a negative effect on the quality of education. 4. Computers dehumanize scholarly activity. 5. The use of computers to share information with others will benefit scholarly communication. 6. Computers can significantly improve the efficiency of libraries. 7. Word processors reduce creativity in scholarly writing. 8. Computers will help scholars use libraries more effectively. 9. The need for complex technical skills makes effective use of computers by scholars problematic. 10. Library computer systems cannot accommodate individual strategies for conducting research. 11. Computers will have a positive effect on patterns of scholarly communication. 12. Electronic publishing (e.g., the creation, distribution and access of publications by computer) will diminish the quality of scholarly publications. NOTE: Response choices for all statements were provided on a five point scale ranging from" strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."