bao.p65


534  College & Research Libraries November 1998

Challenges and Opportunities: 
A Report of the 1998 Library Survey 
of Internet Users at Seton Hall 
University 

Xue-Ming Bao 

This survey aims to collect data to enable Seton Hall University librarian 
faculty and administration to analyze user satisfaction with information 
services provided through the Internet’s World Wide Web. Seton Hall 
faculty and students completed 786 questionnaires. About 80 percent of 
the respondents reported that they used the Web on a daily or weekly 
basis. The results reveal valuable information about the Internet users’ 
search strategies and their levels of satisfaction in using the Web. Analysis 
of the data suggests three challenges for academic librarians and five 
opportunities in providing Internet information services. 

he Internet has become an im­
portant component of elec­
tronic services in academic li­
braries. In an ALA survey, Mary 

J. Lynch reported that 87 percent of aca­
demic libraries of doctorate-granting in­
stitutions included in the survey provided 
information access through home pages 
on the Web; 84 percent provided formal 
Internet training for faculty; and 90 per­
cent provided student training.1 In a na­
tional survey sponsored by the U.S. Na­
tional Commission on Libraries and 
Information Science, researchers John C. 
Bertot, Charles R. McClure, and Douglas 
L. Zweizig reported that the top three 
most important benefits of connecting to 
the Internet were the ability of libraries 
to: (1) access electronic Internet-based in­
formation; (2) communicate with other 
professionals, libraries, and the public; and 
(3) enhance reference service capabilities.2 

Seton Hall University Library created 
its home pages in 1995.3 The initial focus 
of the site was to provide information 
access to library services and resources. 
These resources include the library’s on­
line catalog (SetonCat), periodical title 
database, CD-ROM listing, and descrip­
tions of various library services. The 1995 
pages also included a limited number of 
online resources including Encyclopaedia 
Britannica and Project Muse. 

In October 1997, the library’s home 
pages were restructured and redesigned 
under the leadership of Arthur W. Häfner, 
dean of university libraries. The URL for 
the library Web site is <www.shu.edu/ 
library>. The new structure and design 
strategically focus on gateway access to 
worldwide academic resources. In addi­
tion, the site strengthens the base of local 
information featured in the earlier home 
pages. The revitalized site extends be­

Xue-Ming Bao is Assistant Professor/Reference Librarian in the University Library at Seton Hall Uni­
versity; e-mail: baoxuemi@shu.edu. 

534 

mailto:baoxuemi@shu.edu
http:www.shu.edu


 

Internet Users at Seton Hall University 535 

TABLE 1
 
Students and Faculty Com­

pleting the Survey (question 1)
 

No. % 
Undergraduate 596 75.8%
Graduate 160 20.4
Faculty 30 3.8

Total 786 100.0 
yond the resources that are physically 
available in the library. 

This increased access raises two key 
questions: (1) How does the new site meet 
the needs of students and faculty at the 
university? (2) What strategies should the 
university librarians pursue to improve 
global access to information services 
through the Web? 

Purpose 
The purpose of this survey is to collect 
data that will enable the university librar­
ian faculty and administration to analyze 
student and faculty satisfaction with gate­
way global information services provided 
through the Web. This study is a descrip­
tive survey.4 It is concerned primarily 
with certain aspects of student and fac­
ulty use of the Internet’s Web. The objec­
tive of the study, in general terms, is to 
serve as “an aid . . . in planning, improv­
ing public relations, and even marketing.”5 

Survey Instrument 
The survey instrument 
described in this re­
search was pilot-tested 
by eight persons: four 
students, two faculty 
members, and two out­
side readers. It was 
modified based on 
their responses and 
suggestions. The in­
strument attempts to 
elicit answers to the fol­
lowing questions: 

1. Who is using the 
Internet and the library’s 
home pages? 

2. What are the user’s academic ma­
jors or fields of study? 

3. How frequently does the user 
search the Internet? 

4. What does the user search for on 
the Internet? 

5. What is the user ’s satisfaction level 
with search results? 

6. How long does it take the user to 
find “satisfactory” results? 

7. What problems has the user en­
countered when searching the Internet? 

8. Has the user visited the library’s 
home pages? 

9. Does the user find the library’s 
home pages helpful in searching the In­
ternet? 

10. How does the user find information 
on the Internet? 

11. What are the user’s favorite Inter­
net search engine(s)? 

12. Academically, whose responsibility 
is it to teach the user how to search the 
Internet effectively? 

13. What training courses would the 
user attend? 

Data Collection 
In Applied Statistics, John Neter, William 
Wasserman, and G. A. Whitemore state 
that a census of a finite population is a 
study that includes every element of the 
population, and a census is appropriate 
when it is easy to reach everyone included 
in the study.6 In Descriptive Statistical Tech­
niques for Librarians, Arthur W. Häfner 

TABLE 2 
Students and Faculty and Their Academic 

Major or Field (question 2) 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Arts & Sciences 297 37.8 39 5.0 15 1.9 351 44.7 
Business 158 20.1 21 2.7 4 0.5 183 23.3 
Diplomacy 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
Education 104 13.2 32 4.1 7 0.9 143 18.2 
Medical Education 10 1.3 21 2.7 1 0.1 32 4.1
Nursing 8 1.0 31 3.9 2 0.3 41 5.2
Theology 1 0.1 11 1.4 1 0.1 13 1.6
Other 17 2.2 4 0.5 0 0.0 21 2.7 



536 College & Research Libraries November 1998 

TABLE 3 
Student and Faculty Using the Web on the Internet 

(question 3) 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Daily 241 30.7 56 7.1 19 2.4 316 40.2 
Weekly 238 30.3 57 7.3 6 0.8 301 38.4 
Monthly 63 8.0 18 2.3 3 0.4 84 10.7 
Yearly 5 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.6
Seldom 32 4.1 19 2.4 1 0.1 52 6.6
Never 15 1.9 9 1.1 1 0.1 25 3.1 

states: “Whether the population is 
sampled or surveyed completely (census), 
the librarian will want to apply algo­
rithms to reorganize and summarize the 
raw data.”7 This author collected the sur­
vey data by means of a census of 450 
teaching faculty members who are listed 
in Seton Hall University Registration Hand­
book, Spring 1998: Undergraduate and 
Graduate Course Offerings. This handbook 
contains a listing of the courses offered 
in the 1998 spring semester and identi­
fies the names of the teaching faculty. It 
covers the seven academic colleges served 
by the library (Arts & Sciences, Business, 
Diplomacy, Education, Medical Education, 
Nursing, and Theology). Because the av­
erage class size at the university is twenty-
five students,8 twenty-five copies of the 
questionnaire were sent through the cam­
pus mail to each of the 450 faculty mem­
bers listed in the handbook. Cover letters 
to faculty and students stated: 

� the researcher ’s affiliation with the 
university; 

� a brief description of the project; 
� a statement of the voluntary nature 

of the project; 

� a statement of ano­
nymity/confidentiality of 
the subject’s data. 

Each faculty member 
was asked for his or her 
cooperation for the fol­
lowing activities: 

1. completing the ques­
tionnaire; 

2. selecting one or more 
classes of students randomly 
from their teaching assign­
ment; 

3. distributing the cop­
ies of the cover letter and questionnaire to stu­
dents; 

4. allowing students five to ten min­
utes to complete the questionnaire; 

5. collecting the completed question­
naires and returning them to the re­
searcher through the campus mail. 

Survey instruments were distributed 
the week after the university’s spring re­
cess (March 16, 1998). Between March 19 
and May 7, 1998, seventy-seven faculty 
members, or 17 percent of the 450 in­
cluded in the study, returned 786 com­
pleted questionnaires. In situations where 
a student received the questionnaire in 
more than one class, he or she was in­
structed to complete only one survey. 
Twenty-eight (6% of the 450) of the re­
turns were invalid because of undeliverable 
campus mail. A possible cause may have been 
a mismatch between the names of the faculty 
and their department addresses. The author 
inferred what department a faculty member 
might be in according to the descriptions 
in the registration handbook of the 
courses that he or she teaches. 

In Survey Research Methods, Floyd J. 
Fowler Jr. remarked that a 5 to 20 percent 

TABLE 4
 
Students and Faculty Searching Information on Academic and Nonacademic
 

Studies (question 4)
 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Information related academic studies 500 63.6 128 16.3 26 3.3 654 83.2 
Information not related to academic studies 455 57.8 106 13.5 20 2.5 581 73.8 



Internet Users at Seton Hall University 537 

TABLE 5 
Student and Faculty Levels of Satisfaction for Internet Search 

Results (question 5) 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

1 (High Satisfaction) 44 5.6 12 1.5 5 0.6 61 7.7
2 228 29.0 48 6.1 8 1.0 284 36.1 
3 217 27.6 66 8.4 8 1.0 291 37.0 
4 70 8.9 19 2.4 4 0.5 93 11.8 
5 (Low Satisfaction) 19 2.4 2 0.3 3 0.4 24 3.1 

response rate is low, but he also states: 
“There is no agreed-upon standard for a 
minimum acceptable response rate. . . . 
One generalization that seems to hold up 
for most mail surveys, though it is infer­
ential, is that people who have a particu­
lar interest in the subject matter or the re­
search itself are more likely to return mail 
questionnaires than those who are less in­
terested. This means that mail surveys 
with low response rates may be biased 
significantly in ways that are related di­
rectly to the purposes of the research.”9 

With this caution in mind, the author 
qualifies the survey projection to the fac­
ulty and students who are interested in 
using the Internet only, rather than the 
entire population of the university. 

To analyze the data, the Statistical 
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was 
employed. Data from the survey instru­
ments were coded and subjected to SPSS. 
Frequency tabulations were applied to ob­
tain descriptive measures of the responses. 

Results
Reer lemographice 
Table 1 shows that of 
the 786 survey instru­
ments, 596 (75.8%) were 
completed and re­
turned to the author 
from undergraduate 
students, 160 (20.4%) 
from graduate students, 
and 30 (3.8%) from fac­
ulty members. 

Table 2 shows that 
most responses (677, or 

86.2%) were from three academic majors: 
arts & sciences (351, or 44.7%), business 
(183, or 23.3%), and education (143, or 
18.2%). Other responses (87, or 11%) were 
from academic majors including nursing 
(41, or 5.2%), medical education (32, or 
4.1%), theology (13, or 1.7%), and diplo­
macy (1, or 0.1%). 

Internet Use Frequency and Satisfaction
Levels 
Table 3 shows that most respondents used 
the Web on a daily (316, or 40.2%), weekly 
(301, or 38.3%), and monthly (84, or 
10.7%) basis. Seventy-seven respondents 
(about 10%) said they seldom or never 
used the Internet. 

Table 4 shows that students and fac­
ulty searched the Internet for information 
related to both their academic (654, or 83.2%) 
and nonacademic studies (581, or 73.8%). 

On a scale of five levels of satisfaction, 
one is used to indicate the highest level 
and five the lowest. In table 5, most re­
spondents placed their levels of satisfac­
tion for Internet search results at level two 
(284, or 36.1%) and level three (291, or 

TABLE 6 
Student and Faculty Time Spent on Searching 
Satisfactory Results per Session (question 6) 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

5-10 minutes 30 3.8 6 0.8 3 0.4 39 5.0
11-20 minutes 142 18.1 33 4.2 10 1.3 185 23.6 
21-30 minutes 190 24.2 44 5.6 7 0.9 241 30.7 
31+ minutes 192 24.4 63 8.0 9 1.1 264 33.5 



538 College & Research Libraries November 1998 

TABLE 7
 
Student and Faculty Problems Encountered When Searching the
 

Internet (question 7)
 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Too many hits 230 29.3 59 7.5 13 1.7 302 38.5 
Do not find information needed 302 38.4 69 8.8 16 2.0 387 49.2 
No full-text information can be 268 34.1 64 8.1 12 1.5 344 43.7 

cited for academic study and/or
research

Other 103 13.1 20 2.5 5 0.6 128 16.2 

37%). Only 61 (7.7%) of the respondents 
indicated a high level of satisfaction, and 
117 (about 15%) indicated low levels (lev­
els 4 and 5) of satisfaction. 

Internet Search Results and Problems 
Table 6 shows that 185 (23.6%) of respon­
dents spent 11 to 20 minutes on search­
ing to obtain satisfactory results, 241 (30.7 
%) spent 21 to 30 minutes, and 264 (33.5%) 
spent 30+ minutes. Only 39 (5%) of the 
respondents achieved satisfactory results 
in less than 10 minutes. 

Table 7 identifies three major problems 
encountered by users when searching the 
Internet: 

1. do not find information needed 
(387, or 49.2%); 

2. no full-text information can be cited 
for academic study and/or research (344, 
or 43.7%); 

3. too many hits (302, or 38.5%). 

Use of University Library Home Pages 
Table 8 shows that less than half of the 

respondents (325, or 41.4%) visited the 
library’s home pages when conducting 
their research. 

TABLE 8 
Students and Faculty Using the Library’s Home 

Pages (question 8) 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Yes 248 31.6 57 7.3 20 2.5 325 41.4 
No 328 41.7 90 11.5 9 1.1 427 54.3 

Table 9 shows that of the 321 (40.9%) 
respondents who accessed the library’s 
home pages, 151 (19.2%) felt the home 
pages were helpful, 108 (13.8%) some­
what helpful, 42 (5.4%) very helpful, and 
20 (2.5%) not helpful. 

Internet Search Strategies 
Table 10 shows that students and faculty 
(657, or 83.6%) regard using Internet 
search engines as a preferred way to 
search the Internet, followed by directly 
entering a URL or Web address (502, or 
63.9%). Using categorized gateway Inter­
net resource listings (140, or 17.8%) and 
subscription databases (95, or 12.1%) were 
alternate ways of searching the Internet. 
An explanation for the relatively low use 
of the subscription databases is that they 
had only been available on the library’s 
home pages for less than two months be­
fore the survey was conducted. 

Table 11 shows that Yahoo is the favor­
ite Internet search engine among the In­
ternet users (633, or 80.5%). Other pre­
ferred search engines were InfoSeek (284, 
or 36.2%), Excite (218, or 27.7%), Alta Visa 
(217, or 27.6%), WebCrawler (154, or 

19.6%), and Lycos (134, or 
17%). The least used Internet 
search engines were Hotbot 
(30, or 3.8%), MetaCrawler 
(18, or 2.3%), and Open Text 
Index (8, or 1%). 

Internet Search Training 
Table 12 shows the opinions 
of respondents concerning 



Internet Users at Seton Hall University 539 

TABLE 9 
Student and Faculty Opinions on the Library’s Home 

Pages in Facilitating Internet Searches (question 9) 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Very Helpful 24 3.1 13 1.7 5 0.6 42 5.4
Helpful 119 15.1 22 2.8 10 1.3 151 19.2 
Somewhat helpful 91 11.6 14 1.8 3 0.4 108 13.8 
Not helpful 15 1.9 4 0.5 1 0.1 20 2.5 

which persons or agencies within the uni­
versity should be responsible for teach­
ing them how to search the Internet ef­
fectively. The responses were: 

� university computing services (350, 
or 44.5%); 

� academic college (310, or 39.5%); 
� university librarian faculty (147, or 

18.7%); 
� other (124, or 15.8%). 
A significant number of respondents 

who marked “other” commented that 
they felt it a personal responsibility to 
learn to search the Internet effectively. 
More faculty members in the survey iden­
tified the responsibility as belonging to 
the librarian faculty (10 out of 30, or 
33.3%) than to the academic college (3 out 
of 30, or 10%). Undergraduate students 
identified the responsibility as belonging 
to academic colleges (271 out of 596, or 
45.5%) rather than the librarian faculty (92 
out of 596, or 15.4%). 

Table 13 identifies which Internet train­
ing courses the respondents would likely 
attend if the courses were offered by the 

librarian faculty. Respondents indicated 
that they were most interested in learn­
ing advanced Internet searching skills 
(434, or 55.2%), followed by basic Inter­
net searching (347, or 44.2%), gateway In­
ternet resource listings (240, or 30.6%), 
and subscription databases (192, or 
24.4%). 

Discussion
Diallussuo 
The main challenge for Seton Hall Uni­
versity librarians appears to be how to 
raise the users’ level of satisfaction when 
providing information services through 
the Internet. The Internet has become an 
important source of information for aca­
demic studies as demonstrated in the sur­
vey that 617 (78.5%) of the 786 student and 
faculty respondents used it on a daily or 
weekly basis. Although the Internet has 
great potential as a delivery system for 
both information and instruction, 77 
(about 10%) students and faculty indi­
cated they had seldom or never used the 
Internet. The study also showed that only 

TABLE 10
 
Students and Faculty Searching the Internet in Different Ways
 

(question 10)
 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Use Internet search engines 514 65.4 118 15.0 25 3.2 657 83.6 
Type in a Web address directly 388 49.4 89 11.3 25 3.2 502 63.9 
Use categorized gateway Internet 102 13.0 30 3.8 8 1.0 140 17.8 

resource listings
Use subscription databases 70 8.9 19 2.4 6 0.8 95 12.1 
Other 12 1.5 6 0.8 0 0.0 18 2.3 



540 College & Research Libraries November 1998 

TABLE 11 
Students’ and Faculty’s Favorite Internet Search 

Engines (question 11) 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Alta Visa 164 20.9 41 5.2 12 1.5 217 27.6 
Excite 173 22.0 37 4.7 8 1.0 218 27.7 
Hotbot 21 2.7 9 1.1 0 0.0 30 3.8
InfoSeek 226 28.8 48 6.1 10 1.3 284 36.2 
Lycos 109 13.9 20 2.5 5 0.6 134 17.0 
MetaCrawler 12 1.5 6 0.8 0 0.0 18 2.3
Open Text Index 5 0.6 2 0.3 1 0.1 8 1.0
Yahoo 496 63.1 115 14.6 22 2.8 633 80.5 
WebCrawler 129 16.4 23 2.9 2 0.3 154 19.6 
Other 18 2.3 5 0.6 2 0.3 25 3.2 

61 (7.7%) of the respondents indicated a 
high level of satisfaction with the Inter­
net. Even though 426 (54.3%) students 
and faculty were able to obtain satisfac­
tory results within a period of 11 to 30 
minutes, most (575, or 73.1%) place their 
satisfaction levels for Internet search re­
sults between high and low levels. 
People’s expectations have risen along with 
the improvement of information technology. 
The results the users obtained within 30 min­
utes on the Internet might have taken them a 
few hours or days before this type of search­
ing was available to researchers. 

Another challenge for academic librar­
ians is to find ways to assist students and 
faculty in their use of the Internet. The 
three major problems that respondents 
encounter when searching the Internet 
are: (1) do not find information needed, 
(2) no full-text information can be cited 
for academic study and/or research, and 
(3) too many hits. An easy solution to the 
problem of too many hits is to teach us­
ers better (narrower) search strategies. 

The third challenge for academic li­
brarians is to find ways to provide effec­
tive Internet search training. This issue is 
important because the students tend to 
believe that the responsibility of teaching 
them Internet searching belongs to uni­
versity computing services and/or indi­
vidual academic colleges. Of course, li­
brary faculty must continue discussions 

within the academic community to make 
sure that this area of teaching is their re­
sponsibility. 

Conclusions
Cooortusitins 
The three challenges identified above 
present five additional opportunities for 
academic librarians: 

1. The high percentage of students 
and faculty who use the Web on a daily 
or weekly basis for their academic stud­
ies affirms that information access deliv­
ered through the Internet is becoming an 
important component of library services 
in tomorrow’s library. 

2. Academic librarians will find that 
they need to reallocate budget resources 
to expand the availability of electronic 
resources for students and faculty. This 
will likely take the form of Internet de­
livery of commercial full-text databases. 
Internet access will be seen as an advan­
tage for eliminating or reducing the need 
for CD-ROM towers, for receiving more 
timely updates from the database provid­
ers, and for providing 24-hour access to 
academic resources for students and fac­
ulty both on campus and in homes and 
offices. 

3. In providing Internet training, aca­
demic librarians need to initiate and 
strengthen their relationships with their 
institution’s computing services and also 



 

Internet Users at Seton Hall University 541 

TABLE 12
 
Student and Faculty Opinions on Who Should Be
 
Responsible for Teaching Them How to Search
 

the Internet Effectively (question 12)
 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Academic college 271 34.5 36 4.6 3 0.4 310 39.5 
University computing services 272 34.6 62 7.9 16 2.0 350 44.5 
University librarian faculty 92 11.7 45 5.7 10 1.3 147 18.7 
Other 85 10.8 32 4.1 7 0.9 124 15.8 

with the academic disciplines. An instruc­
tional strength for academic librarians 
would be to work in academic partner­
ship with classroom faculty to teach stu­
dents how to effectively locate scholarly 
information and how to evaluate sites 
where information is found. A measure 
of success can be realized by helping stu­
dents learn how to reduce the number of 
unrelated hits. Academic librarians may 
combine Internet search training with 
teaching about traditional library re­
sources of books and journals. Not every­
thing can be found on the Internet, and 
often it is quicker to find the information 
by looking at print materials. 

4. Academic librarians need to effec­
tively integrate the use of Internet search 
engines into instruction programs and at 
the reference desk because 657 (83.6%) of 
the 786 respondents reported that using 
search engines is a preferred way to 
search the Internet. Also, librarians need 
to view Yahoo as a database of signifi­
cance because 633 (80.5%) of the 786 re­
spondents identified it as a key resource. 

5. Academic librarians who have de­

veloped home pages need to find ways 
to publicize them because only 325 
(41.4%) of the 786 respondents reported 
that they visited the library’s home pages. 
Academic librarians may wish to use the 
library’s home pages to expand instruc­
tional programs for traditional biblio­
graphic instruction by developing Web-
based, self-paced teaching courses that 
allow students to learn and use academic 
library resources, online databases, and 
general Internet search. 

Suggestionsf orfFurtherfInvestigations 
A number of further investigations can be 
suggested as a result of this survey: 

� A Seton Hall University Library In­
ternet User Survey should be conducted 
on a regular basis to compare possible 
changes in users’ Internet search strate­
gies and levels of satisfaction. 

� The impact of Internet search train­
ing offered by academic librarians on user 
satisfaction should be studied. 

� Experiments with providing Web-
based bibliographic instructions through the 
library’s home pages should be performed. 

TABLE 13 
Students and Faculty Who Would Likely Attend Internet Training 

Offered by University Librarian Faculty 
(question 13) 

Undergraduate Graduate Faculty n = 786
N % N % N % N % 

Basic Internet searching 256 32.6 80 10.2 11 1.4 347 44.2 
Advanced Internet searching 337 42.9 78 9.9 19 2.4 434 55.2 
Gateway Internet resource listings 175 22.3 54 6.9 11 1.4 240 30.6 
Subscription databases 124 15.8 52 6.6 16 2.0 192 24.4 



542 College & Research Libraries 

� Internet search engines should be 
studied and compared and ways sought 
to exploit the strength presented by Ya­
hoo as a leading favorite Internet search 
engine and database. 

The author would like to acknowledge the 
assistance of his colleagues for their critical 

November 1998 

reviews and helpful comments on his survey 
instrument, survey proposal, and final report: 
Beth Bloom, Paul Chao, Declan Cunniff, 
Arthur Häfner, Anthony Lee, Katalin 
Mandelker, Richard Stern, Joan Taub, and 
Charles Yen. He also thanks the many Seton 
Hall University faculty members and students 
for participating in the survey. 

Notes 

1. Mary J. Lynch, Electronic Services in Academic Libraries: ALA Survey Report (Chicago: ALA, 
1996). 

2. John C. Bertot, Charles R. McClure, and Douglas L. Zweizig, The 1996 National Survey of 
Public Libraries and the Internet: Progress and Issues: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. National 
Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1996). 

3. The original library home pages can be accessed at <www.shu.edu/library/original.htm> 
4. Helen M. Gothberg, “Library Survey: A Research Methodology Rediscovered,” College & 

Research Libraries 51 (Nov. 1990): 553–59. In this article, Gothberg states: “Most descriptive sur­
veys describe one library or a group of libraries within a system or even a state. Such surveys 
deal with quantitative data and are used to compare with similar statistics from the previous 
year, or other libraries. They may also seek opinions and/or demographic data about users.” 

5. Ibid. 
6. John Neter, William Wasserman, and G. A. Whitemore, Applied Statistics (Boston: Allyn 

and Bacon, 1982), 188. 
7. Arthur W. Häfner, Descriptive Statistical Techniques for Education, 2nd ed. (Chicago: ALA, 

1998), 6. 
8. The University Office of Publications, Seton Hall University: Undergraduate Bulletin 1997– 

1998 (South Orange, N.J.: Seton Hall University), 7. 
9. Floyd J. Fowler, Survey Research Methods (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1993), 40–41. 

www.shu.edu/library/original.htm