474
Library Service Perceptions: A Study
of Two Universities
Lynn Sutton, Rosann Bazirjian, and Stephen Zerwas
Lynn Sutton is Dean of Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University; e-mail: suttonls@wfu.edu.
Rosann Bazirjian is Dean of University Libraries at The University of North Carolina – Greensboro; e-
mail: rvbazirj@uncg.edu. Stephen Zerwas is Director of Academic Assessment at The University of North
Carolina – Greensboro; e-mail: sczerwas@uncg.edu.
Two academic libraries in North Carolina replicated the Perceptions of
Libraries and Information Resources global survey. This paper examines
whether student responses in this survey are similar to the 2005 OCLC
study and whether they are similar to each other. The authors examine
potential reasons for similarities and differences, including student body
profile, institutional differences in library services and demographic
factors. The findings indicate that local factors dramatically affect the
responses and should drive local service decisions rather than relying
on global aggregate data.
n 2005, OCLC (Online Com-
puter Library Center, Inc.)
published Perceptions of Librar-
ies and Information Resources,1
the results of a global survey designed to
explore people’s information-seeking be-
haviors and build a better understanding
of the “library” brand. Later that year, a
subset of the data was published as Col-
lege Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and
Information Resources.2 Immediately upon
publication, academic library directors
across the United States began to wonder
how their students would compare to
the international sample. In North Caro-
lina, two library directors of neighboring
academic institutions (for these purposes
Institution A and Institution B) designed a
study to replicate five main questions from
the OCLC study to learn how their stu-
dents’ answers compared. Permission was
given by the principal contributor of the
Perceptions report to replicate this study.
Research Questions
The two directors sought to answer the
following research questions:
Are the student responses of Institu-
tion A/B similar to the responses found
in the OCLC study? OCLC’s data came
from 396 participants of the survey who
self-identified as currently attending a
post-secondary institution. Can findings
from the OCLC study be applied to these
institutions?
How do student responses from the two
institutions compare to each other? Institu-
tions A and B are very different in terms
of size, student body, and academic pro-
grams. Would this result in substantially
different responses to the survey items?
Are there demographic differences
in student responses to the survey? De-
mographic data gathered included age,
gender, residency on or off campus, and
year of college. Would these characteris-
tics differentiate the data?
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 475
Review of the Literature
A review of Library Literature revealed
many journal articles that mention OCLC
in relation to perceptions of library ser-
vices since 2005. Of those, 20 actually cite
the Perceptions of Libraries and Information
Resources study. Of those 20, only one ar-
ticle refers to a survey that was done with
results subsequently compared to OCLC’s
responses. That 2006 article by Carol
Tenopir links OCLC survey responses to
a recent survey she conducted of faculty
and students at seven universities in the
United States and Australia.3 Ms. Tenopir
offers conclusions regarding e-journal
usage versus book usage. Her study
indicates that e-collections are heavily
used and that article readership is grow-
ing consistently. She looks primarily at
e-journals and notes the discrepancy with
the OCLC report and its statement that
“books” are the first things that college
students think of when they think about
the library. She suggests that the discrep-
ancy between her responses and those of
the OCLC study is because the faculty
and students that she interviewed were
from universities with “great electronic
library collections.” The OCLC popula-
tion was different as they surveyed the
general public, including nonlibrary
users. This article comes closest to rep-
licating the OCLC research that we have
conducted, but Ms. Tenopir focused on
just one aspect.
Other articles focus on certain aspects
of the OCLC survey results, which are
mentioned here for the sake of complete-
ness but are beyond the scope of this
study. Most concentrated on the result
that search engines were trusted and
used much more often than library Web
sites as a source of information retrieval.
These articles were often about related
topics that used this finding as an ex-
ample. A 2006 article by Lesley Williams
focuses on how to make e-content more
visible.4 Michelle Jeske’s article (2006) is
about how to grow digital collections.5 An
article about gaming, written in 2006 by
Ameet Doshi, also cites the search engine
finding of OCLC.6 Daniel L. Walters, in
2006, challenged public librarians to use
the survey findings to boost the quality
of library Web sites.7 Paul T. Jaeger, in
2007, focused his paper on trust and the
values of librarianship and again cited
OCLC’s comments that search engines
are trusted more than library Web sites.8
Michael Casey and Michael Stephens, in
2008, used this as a call to librarians to
use OCLC’s search engine findings as a
foundation for change.9
A number of the articles centered
on another major finding in the OCLC
Perceptions document, that being the fact
that most individuals think of books first
when they think of libraries. Most of
these articles used this finding to focus
on branding. John Cell (2008) says that we
need to find our “core of uniqueness.”10
Shu Liu (2008) says it is time to rejuvenate
the library brand and make library Web
sites more pertinent.11 Nancy Stimson said
that patrons believing that libraries are
just about books should make us all step
back and think.12 Elizabeth Karle, 2008,
talks about creative programming ideas
to rejuvenate the library brand.13 Trudi
Bellardo Hahn (2008) questioned whether
or not the brand of books was really all
that bad.14 She feels that we will be in even
more trouble if users stop thinking about
libraries as books. Dick Kaser in 2006 also
proposed that books hold value, so why
is “books” a negative response?15 Book
publishers should be heartened by this
response, and he is thrilled that books
seem to have a lasting value in this day
and age. Scott Condon, in 2006, advised
us to not see the OCLC report as a death
sentence for libraries.16 He states: “As li-
braries adapt and evolve, let’s make sure
we do so in accord with our values and
principles, rather than from fear, expedi-
ency, or speculative zeal.”
Based on this literature search, the au-
thors are confident that no other univer-
sity libraries have produced a survey and
study such as ours. Applying the OCLC
findings to individual libraries is untried.
Based on a review of the literature, we
476 College & Research Libraries September 2009
find that the generic OCLC survey re-
sponses are being used for local decision
making at libraries across the country.
This article will discuss whether or not the
OCLC survey results are representative
of the findings at two neighboring, yet
significantly different institutions.
Sample
The sample frame consists of randomly
selected students taken from two in-
stitutions in North Carolina. Students
were contacted by e-mail and asked to
participate in a Web-based survey that
elicited information on their perceptions
of the library. At least two reminders
were sent to the students who received
the surveys. Subjects were entered
into drawings for $100 gift cards to
the campus bookstore as incentives for
their participation in the survey. The
sample at institution A consisted of
3,504 students. Eighteen e-mails were
undeliverable and 478 of the remaining
students responded for a response rate
of 14.4 percent. The sample for institu-
tion B was 4,972 with 27 undeliverable
e-mails resulting in 486 respondents for
a response rate of 9.8 percent. Institution
A and Institution B are dramatically
different universities. In addition to
comparing a small, private institution
(Institution A) to a mid-sized public
institution (Institution B), as can be seen
in Appendix A, there are substantial
differences between the student popula-
tions of the two institutions.
The analysis used for this study was
an a priori content analysis approach
based on coding categories published
in the OCLC Perceptions of Libraries and
Information Resources. Content analysis is
a systematic technique for summarizing
any form of communication into fewer
elements and is used to identify themes
or other characteristics of communication.
Communication is analyzed and codes
are assigned to each content unit. The unit
of analysis for this study was the complete
response given by each subject for each
open-ended question.
Analysis of the Data
Analysis of the data was performed using
Roxanne Content Analyzer, a Microsoft
Access application. The two analysts
independently reviewed the content for
each question and completed a prelimi-
nary analysis using OCLC codes. Analysts
were allowed to identify multiple codes
for each subject response since multiple
themes were present in the subject’s
responses. The analysts then compared
their analysis and refined their analy-
sis approach for any disagreements in
coding. The analysts then recoded the
content for each open-ended question
using their refined understanding of the
OCLC codes. Following analysis, the
results were compared and reliability
statistics were calculated. Reliability sta-
tistics ranged from 76.4 percent to 85.8
percent. Comparisons were made using
institutional and demographic data, and
comparisons were made with the original
OCLC study.
Findings
Question One: “What do you feel is the
main purpose of a library?”
OCLC Comparison: The merged (Institu-
tion A and B) responses to the first ques-
tion differed significantly from the OCLC
study. Fully 38 percent of Institution
A/B students indicated that the building/
environment was the main purpose of a
library, with 35 percent responding that
materials were the main purpose, and a
close 34 percent saying that libraries are
for research purposes. OCLC reported
that approximately 49 percent17 of the
respondents said that information was the
main purpose of a library. Books were cited
among 32 percent of the respondents, and
20 percent replied that research was the
main purpose. Surprisingly, compared to
OCLC, only 26 percent of the Institution
A/B students felt that information was the
main purpose. Also, a mere 12 percent
felt that the main purpose of a library was
for books. It is a real surprise to note that
the largest response from the combined
institutions was OCLC’s lowest response
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 477
(5%). Students provided both very posi-
tive and very critical comments regard-
ing the building/environment of the two
libraries. One student replied that the
main purpose of a library is “to provide
an environment geared toward study-
ing.” Another student said that a library
is “a place to foster learning.” One student
claimed that the purpose of a library is to
“provide an environment for self-study
and reflection, while encouraging groups
of people an opportunity for collabora-
tive creation and research.” The library
as place is a very important concept for
Institution A/B students.
Institutional Comparison: Although
the combined Institution A/B response
favored building/environment as the main
purpose of a library, the institutional
responses differed significantly. Nearly
half (49%) of Institution A students listed
building/environment first, with research
and materials tied for second place with
36 percent. One response from an Insti-
tution A student expressed it this way:
“Though one might argue that the library
is a place to do research (and I do plenty
there!), my initial associations are of a
place that is quiet, distraction-free, and
enables me to effectively get my work
done.” Only 27 percent of Institution B
students felt that building/environment
is the main purpose of a library, the
fourth-rated response. The top response
at Institution B was a tie between infor-
mation and materials, both at 33 percent,
followed closely by research at 32 per-
cent. An Institution B student felt the
main purpose of a library is to serve as
a research central. “A library should be
a hub for any scholarly work involving
textual or audio/visual media research.”
In general, Institution B responses more
closely paralleled OCLC; and it was only
when the strong 49 percent response
from Institution A for building/environ-
ment combined with the 27 percent from
Institution B that the overall response
differed from OCLC. Reading, entertain-
ment, and unknown/NA were at the bot-
tom of the list for both institutions.
Demographic Comparison: Gender
was not a differentiating factor on this
question, as both male and female
responses followed the same order of
frequency as the combined response:
building/environment (42%-M, 37%-F), fol-
lowed by materials (33%-M, 35%-F), and
then research (32%-M, 35%-F), information
(25%-M, 26%-F) and books (11%-M, 12%-
F). Those who were residents on campus
ranked building/environment as their top
response (51%), followed by research
(38%), materials (36%), information (19%),
and books (14%). Off-campus residents
rated materials first with 34 percent, fol-
lowed by research (32%), information (31%)
and then building/environment (30%). Age
and Year in School are linked variables
and both were differentiating factors in
this question. Respondents 18 to 24 years
old (roughly equivalent to undergradu-
ates in their first through fourth/fifth
years) favored building/environment (48%),
research (36%), and materials (35%) in their
responses, very similar to the overall
combined response. Those respondents
who were 25 to 64 years of age favored
information (38%), materials (34%), and re-
search (30%), closer to the OCLC response,
though substituting materials for books.
Master’s students listed information as the
main purpose of a library, while doctoral
students felt materials were most impor-
tant. Professional students surprisingly
returned to the undergraduate focus on
building/environment as the main purpose
of a library.
Question Two: “What is the first thing that
you think of when you think of a library?”
OCLC Comparison: This is the trade-
mark question that OCLC used to iden-
tify “books” as the Library brand. Over-
whelmingly, the first response for OCLC
survey respondents was books, with 70
percent giving that response. Building/
environment was a distant second at 12
percent. The much-different top response
for Institution A/B respondents was build-
ing/environment at 45 percent, with books
being a close second at 43 percent. The
478 College & Research Libraries September 2009
bottom-most response was the same for
both surveys: reference clocked in at 1 per-
cent for Institution A/B and 0.5 percent for
OCLC. That’s a very important statement
for libraries that provides librarians with
an opportunity to rethink the way that
reference services are provided. Com-
ments from the Institution A/B students
about the building/environment focused
on the library as a quiet place to study,
over and over again. Typical responses
were, “a place to relax study and read,” “a
quiet place to think/study,” and a personal
favorite: “a place of mild climate where I
can find adventures.”
Institutional Comparison: Again, the
Institution B response more closely paral-
leled the OCLC response, with books (45%)
as the top answer, followed by building/en-
vironment (34%) and materials (17%). Typi-
cal responses from Institution B students,
when asked the first thing they thought
of, were, “Many, many books,” and “Tons
of books.” Institution A students strongly
expressed their preference for building/
environment (55%), followed by books
(41%), research (16%), and materials (9%). A
typical Institution A student said the first
thing thought of is, “A quiet place to think
and study.” Reading and Reference were
the bottom-most responses for students
at both institutions, with information in
the middle for both.
Demographic Comparison: Again,
gender was not a factor in determining
student responses, as both males and
females answered in the following order
to the top-of-the-mind question: build-
ing/environment (46%-M, 45%-F), books
(40%-M, 45%-F), research (16%-M, 16%-
F). More than half (56%) of on-campus
students listed building/environment as
the first thing they thought of, followed
by books at 44 percent and research at 16
percent. Off-campus students agreed
with the OCLC respondents (though at a
much lower rate) when they listed books
first at 42 percent, followed by building/
environment at 39 percent and research at
16 percent. Answers also differed by Age
and Year in School, as 53 percent of 18- to
24-year-olds thought first of the building/
environment, followed by books at 43 per-
cent and then research at 15 percent. For
ages 25 and greater, books took the number
one position with 42 percent, followed
by building/environment at 30 percent and
materials at 21 percent. Year in School
groupings provided very interesting
data. Years One through Four/Five at the
undergraduate level all named building/
environment as the first thing they thought
of, in percentages over 50 percent; but at
the master’s and doctoral degree level,
this changed dramatically to books. As
in question one, this changed again for
students in professional schools, where
73 percent again chose building/environ-
ment as the first thing they thought of in
a library.
Question Three: “Please describe your
positive associations with the library.”
OCLC Comparison: Once again, the top
two answers for OCLC and Institution
A/B were the same, but appeared in re-
verse order. The number one response for
Institution A/B was facility/environment18
(47%), with products and offerings a close
second (46%). OCLC reported products
and offerings in first place (61%) and fa-
cility/environment a distant second at 13
percent. For Institution A/B, facility/envi-
ronment responses related to the libraries
providing a quiet environment, friendly
and comfortable surroundings, and a
pleasant work environment. OCLC com-
ments in this category revolved around
the same focus—quiet, clean, nice, and
comfortable atmospheres. For products
and offerings, Institution A/B students
appreciate the many computers in the
libraries and convenient computer access,
books, and online access to resources and
electronic journals. As far as the OCLC
responses in the products/offerings cat-
egory, the majority had to do with books,
followed by information. The concept
of free information appeared in these
responses. Computers and easy to find/
access was the lowest reported response
in the category— surprisingly, one of the
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 479
more popular responses with the Institu-
tion A/B students. The next two responses
are the same for OCLC and Institution
A/B. The third most popular response was
staff (25% for Institution A/B and 9% for
OCLC). Staff responses in both surveys
revolved around helpful, friendly, and
knowledgeable staff. At Institution A/B,
customer/user services answers were also
about helpful, friendly staff, ILL services,
and the research help that both libraries
provide. Customer/user services among
the OCLC respondents centered on the
practice of the library being open to the
public, ILL (once again), the availability
of an online catalog, and the ability of
libraries to meet their needs.
Institutional comparison: The first two
responses for students at both institutions
were the same, products and offerings and
facility/environment, but they were reversed.
Again, Institution B more closely replicated
the OCLC response of products and offerings
with 49 percent and facility/environment
in second place at 33 percent, though the
OCLC percentages were much further
apart at 61 percent and 13 percent. An In-
stitution B student said, “I love the online
access to databases and journals.” Another
said, “Being able to use the computer and
having a great selection of books and a very
nice staff with both the librarians and the
security.” At Institution A, students con-
tinued their strong preference for facility/
environment with 62 percent and products
and offerings at 43 percent. The attachment
to the facility at Institution A is expressed
by this student, “The library is gorgeous,
in particular, the atrium. Its hours are long
enough to allow for students to stay up to
study/write papers/work on projects. Dur-
ing exams, the library had free coffee and
also was open 24 hours every day. Perhaps
the best part of that period, though, was the
free food (either subway or pizza) they of-
fered at 1 a.m. each night.” The remaining
three ranks were the same at both institu-
tions: staff (28% at Institution B and 22% at
Institution A), customer/user service (18% at
Institution B and 19% at Institution A) and
unknown factors.
Demographic comparison: A slight dif-
ference was shown in gender responses,
where females ranked products and of-
ferings and facility/environment exactly
the same at 46 percent, but males gave a
slight preference to facility/environment at
51 percent over products and offerings at 47
percent. Staff and customer/user service are
in third and fourth place for both sexes.
On-campus residents preferred facility/
environment (59%) over products and offer-
ings (44%). Off-campus residents, which
include more graduate students, prefer
products and offerings over facility/environ-
ment 48 percent to 40 percent. Staff and
customer/user service are again in third and
fourth place for both groups. In the closely
linked age and Year in School categories,
18- to 24-year-olds listed more positive as-
sociations with facility/environment (56%)
than products and offerings (42%), as did
students in the first four undergraduate
years. More positive associations were
found among 25- to 64-year-olds in
products and offerings (54%) than facility/
environment (31%), corresponding to the
graduate student responses with 53 per-
cent of master’s students and 59 percent
of doctoral students preferring products
and offerings. As in questions one and two,
professional school students returned to
the preference for facility/environment, by
a 75 percent to 29 percent margin over
products and offerings.
Question Four: “Please describe your
negative associations with the library.”
OCLC comparison: The number one
response for Institution A/B was facility/
environment (51%). This was a real sur-
prise since it prominently showed up as
the number one response in the previous
questions, all with a positive spin. For
OCLC respondents, facility/environment
was reported as the second most popular
response at 25 percent. For both sets of re-
spondents, the responses tended to be the
same. The buildings are too loud or too
quiet; too crowded or too outdated; too
big or too small; and confusing in layout.
The second most popular response for
480 College & Research Libraries September 2009
Institution A/B is unknown (22%). Under
this category, the authors counted all of
the replies that said there were no nega-
tive associations with the library or that
this question was n/a. The number one
response for OCLC respondents, products
and offerings (39%) was the number three
response for Institution A/B students
(14%). Books and computers were some
of the items complained about in this
category. For Institution A/B, there were
comments about the computers always
being full, that the libraries didn’t have
enough books on a particular topic, the
printers didn’t work, the library had
outdated books, and that more full text
was needed. For OCLC, the majority
of responses within this category were
about books and materials. Computer
complaints also appeared. Customer/
user service was the fourth most popular
response at Institution A/B (12%), and
the third at OCLC (23%). Complaints
about customer/user service at Institution
A/B centered strongly on access services
issues, including library fines, overdue
notices, renewals, and recall policies. For
OCLC, comments regarding customer/user
service were also about fees and policies
and stringent return dates—again, an
access services focus. However, OCLC
respondents also commented on hours
of operation, waiting in line too long, and
lack of privacy issues. Finally, staff was the
least reported response at Institution A/B
at 4 percent. It was also the least reported
at OCLC at 6 percent. For both sets of
survey responses, the few comments
in this category were about unfriendly,
unavailable, and not very helpful staff.
Institutional comparison: For the first
time, both universities showed the same
rankings for a question, though the per-
centages varied. The most common nega-
tive association at each library was facility/
environment. This may be attributed to the
continued preoccupation with library as
place at each institution. At Institution
A, 61 percent of negative associations
were with the facility/environment, and at
Institution B it was 41 percent. At Insti-
tution A, where each student receives a
laptop as part of tuition, the number one
complaint was about a lack of electri-
cal outlets. For example, “There is not
enough space in the 24-hour room to
really focus by myself and there are not
enough electrical outlets in the other parts
of the library to use my computer.” Un-
comfortable furniture was also a concern:
“The furniture in the library is quite pos-
sibly the least comfortable furniture I’ve
ever encountered. Librarians and those
who go to libraries should not have to be
subjected to such pain.” At Institution B,
students were frustrated with crowded
computer labs and building conditions.
One student said, “It takes too long to find
something, it’s a long way for me to get
there, it is not in a very accessible place.”
Students at both libraries complained of
the confusing arrangement of the build-
ing and stacks. A typical comment was,
“They are confusing! I always struggle
to get on the right floor. They never seem
to be laid out well. Inevitably, it is hard
to get from floor to floor as well.” As
previously stated, “unknown” was in
second place at both libraries, attributed
to the n/a answers from large numbers of
students, which is a good thing. Products
and offerings followed in third place with
17 percent at Institution B and 12 percent
at Institution A.
Demographic comparison: This ques-
tion alone had consensus agreement
from all demographic factors. Facility/
environment was the leading negative as-
sociation for males (51%) and females
(51%), on-campus (58%) and off-campus
(47%) residents, 18- to 24-year-olds (57%)
and 25- to 64-year-olds (40%), and all
Years in College from freshman (59%) to
doctoral students (37%). Library as place
is very important to all student users in
academic libraries, and they notice when
the environment does not meet their
needs. Complaints were registered about
the confusing layout of both libraries:
lack of 24-hour availability, lack of a cof-
fee shop, uncomfortable furniture, dim
lighting, lack of electrical outlets, lack of
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 481
group study spaces, noise, temperature,
and cleanliness.
Question Five: “If you could provide one
piece of advice to your library, what would
it be?”
For the fifth time, facility/environment
was the Institution A/B combined first
response, with 40 percent of the respon-
dents’ answers falling into this category.
For OCLC, facility/environment was the
second most popular response at 23 per-
cent. For Institution A/B, comments in this
category were about providing either qui-
eter or more group study areas, lighting,
the need for more outlets, the provision
of more comfortable seating, and a desire
for longer library hours. Products and offer-
ings was the number one response from
the OCLC surveys (27%), and the number
two response from the Institution A/B
surveys (31%). Both ranked high in per-
centage. Responses in this category from
OCLC were in the area of adding more
to the collections, updating collections,
computer, and online chat. Institution
A/B responses also focused on the need
for adding more books to the collection
as well as online resources, and also a
request to update the collections. Online
chat was not mentioned. Customer/user
service ranked third for Institution A/B
(14%) and third for OCLC (22%).
Institutional Comparison: Institution A
students again responded with the most
pieces of advice (50%) for the category
of facility/environment, meaning all five
questions at Institution A were focused
on library as place. One student summed
it up, “Students use the library primarily,
when not conducting actual research, for
homework and studying. The library is
lacking in appropriate areas to do this.
Increase lighting in the stacks, update
the chairs/desks, and add more outlets.
This would make the library much better
for student use.” Institution B students
listed products and offerings first (35%)
followed closely by facility/environment
at 29 percent. One thoughtful student
at Institution B said, “Keep thinking of
ways to help students and faculty get at
useful information. Now that electronic
journals are prevalent, keep doing that,
but work also on newer ideas, like how to
get primary documents available online.”
In second place at Institution A were com-
ments about products and offerings (27%).
Tied for third and fourth place at Institu-
tion A were satisfaction and customer/user
service, both at 11 percent. At Institution
B, customer/user service came in third at
16 percent and satisfaction at 13 percent.
Demographic Comparison: Both males
and females gave the most pieces of ad-
vice on facility/environment (42% to 39%).
Next was the products and offerings cat-
egory for both genders (32% for males and
31% for females), followed by satisfaction
at 14 percent for males and customer/user
service at 15 percent for females. Answers
differed by residency status, however, as
on-campus students gave the most ad-
vice by far on facility/environment (51%),
followed by products and offerings at 27%
and customer/user service at 12 percent.
Off-campus students were very close
in their first two answers, with products
and offerings at 34 percent, followed by
facility/environment at 33 percent and cus-
tomer/user service at 14 percent. Consistent
with previous questions, undergraduate
students in their first through fifth years
focused on facility/environment ranging
from 44 percent to 59 percent, but for
master’s and doctoral students, products
and offerings became more important, at
42 percent and 52 percent respectively.
Professional school students continued
the fascinating trend of behaving more
like undergraduate students in their focus
on facility/environment (73%).
Answers to Research Questions
The first research question was: Are the
student responses of Institution A/B simi-
lar to the responses found in the OCLC
study? The answer is a resounding no.
The top-ranked response was different
in every category for OCLC and the
combined Institution A/B results. Facility/
environment was top-ranked for all five
482 College & Research Libraries September 2009
questions from the two institutions and
never higher than second in any of the
OCLC questions. This is a startling find-
ing. OCLC had only a small sample of 396
survey participants who self-identified as
currently attending a postsecondary insti-
tution. These could have been students
in community colleges, trade schools,
liberal arts colleges, or research univer-
sities anywhere across the globe. Our
combined study provided a total sample
of 964 students, 478 from Institution A
and 486 from Institution B. Something
about these larger samples on individual
campuses resulted in a much different
response from the small but broad sample
from the OCLC study. It is obvious that
library as place is much more important
to students on these two campuses than
in the general OCLC findings. To learn
why this might be, it is necessary to probe
deeper into the responses.
The second research question was: how
do student responses from the two insti-
tutions compare to each other? Keeping
in mind that the numbers in the sample
populations at each institution are nearly
equal, the answer to that question is re-
vealing. Institution A’s students placed
facility/environment in first place to every
question. It was both their most positive
and their most negative experience of
the library. It was the main purpose and
the first thing they thought of when they
thought of the library. And it was the sub-
ject of most of the advice that they wanted
to give about the library. At Institution B,
facility/environment placed fourth, second,
second, first, and second, respectively, in
answers to the five questions. But when
combined with the overwhelming empha-
sis on place at Institution A, it became the
most prevalent combined answer in every
category. Institution B responses much
more closely resembled the OCLC set. In
four of the five categories (all except for
negative associations), the top Institution
B response was the same as the top OCLC
response. What is it about these two
neighboring sets of students that make
them answer so differently? It could be lo-
cal factors such as the physical condition
of each library (although both directors
readily admit that each library is in seri-
ous need of updating and renovations).
The composition of each student body
is quite different. Institution A is an elite
Top 30 school with average SAT scores
that are 277 points higher than Institu-
tion B. Yet it would be counterintuitive
to reason that higher-qualified students
seek only a place to study and don’t value
the materials, products, and services
provided by the library. We need to look
at demographics for other possible clues.
The third research question was: do
demographics matter? Here the answer
must be a resounding yes, at least for
some categories of demographics. Gen-
der was the least differentiating factor,
as males and females agreed on almost
every question with a high degree of
similarity in response percentages: 42%
to 37% for main purpose; 46% to 45% for
first thing thought of; 51% to 46% for posi-
tive associations; 51% to 51% for negative
associations; and 42% to 39% for advice
to the library.
There was much more variability by
residency. Top responses of on-campus
and off-campus students were different
in four of the five questions. Only in their
negative associations with the library did
they agree that building/environment was
foremost. In the other four questions, on-
campus students continued to list build-
ing/environment as their top answer, but
off-campus students had other priorities.
For the main purpose of a library, their
top three answers were materials (34%),
research (32%), and information (31%).
Building/environment came in fourth with
30 percent. The first thing off-campus stu-
dents thought of when they thought of a
library was books (42%) followed by build-
ing/environment (39%) and research (16%).
Off-campus students had the most posi-
tive associations with products and offerings
(48%), followed by facility/environment
(40%) and staff (27%). Off-campus stu-
dents provided more pieces of advice on
products and offerings (34%) than on facility/
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 483
environment (33%) or customer/user service
(14%). Looking at the characteristics of on-
campus students, they are more often in
the first two years of their undergraduate
careers and are in the 18–24 age group.
Most graduate students live off-campus,
rather than on. It should be noted that a
majority of students attending Institution
B live off campus.
Age and Year in Class are closely linked
variables. 18- to 24-year-olds are most of-
ten undergraduate students, especially at
Institution A. Both the 18–24 age category
and Years One through Four in school
show building/environment as the top-rated
response at both schools to each question,
replicating the total combined results for
Institution A/B. Even in questions where
the overall Institution B response was
something other than building/environment
(all questions except negative associa-
tions), when only Institution B undergrad-
uates or students from 18 to 24 years of
age were considered, the answer became
place focused. Looking at demographic
data for each school, 18- to 24-year-olds
are 85 percent of all Institution A partici-
pants and 42 percent of all Institution B
participants. Together, they are 63 percent
of the total combined participants. Using
the Year in School demographic, students
in all undergraduate years are 73 percent
of the Institution A respondents and 40
percent of all Institution B respondents.
Given the much lower percentage of
undergraduates at Institution B, it is evi-
dent why total responses begin to differ
from the overwhelmingly undergraduate
student body at Institution A and why
they begin to more closely resemble the
broader global sample of OCLC.
Given the demographic trends de-
scribed above, it is reasonable to conclude
that the driving force behind the place-cen-
tered answers of the combined response,
and Institution A in particular, is the age
and year-in-school demographics. This
validates perceptions that library staff have
had for years, namely that undergraduates
use the library most often to study. This
phenomenon has driven the recent em-
phasis on library as place in the literature.
There has been a recent boom in academic
library renovation that is transforming
academic libraries into inviting, comfort-
able places for individual and collaborative
study, complete with coffee shops, soft
seating and places for group study.
Graduate students differ from under-
graduates in their values; as their answers
indicated, information is the main purpose
of a library for master’s students and ma-
terials are the main purpose for doctoral
students. Both master’s and doctoral stu-
dents say that the first thing they think
of is books, ironically the same response
as the broad, global OCLC study. Both
master’s and doctoral students say that
products and offerings hold their most posi-
tive associations, although, interestingly,
both master’s and doctoral students go
back to facility/environment in their nega-
tive associations. Again, it is products and
offerings that both master’s and doctoral
students have in mind when they offer
advice to the library.
One of the most fascinating findings of
this study is the phenomenon of Profes-
sional School students who very nearly
replicate the answers of undergraduate
students in their approach to the library.
A total of 29 individuals identified them-
selves as Professional School students in
Law, Divinity, or Business at Institution
A. Institution B did not offer the category
of Professional School students. From the
qualitative answers to questions, it was
evident that a large number of responses
came from law school students at Institu-
tion A. Like undergraduates, their top
answers to all five questions were building/
environment. This could be a local phenom-
enon since at Institution A, law students
are assigned permanent carrels within the
library and become quite possessive about
their space. Or it could be a more general-
ized phenomenon that law students, like
undergraduates, study heavily out of
textbooks and use the library for intense
study and classroom preparation. Addi-
tional research is needed at other schools
to test this finding.
484 College & Research Libraries September 2009
Implications and Further Research
The major takeaway point for the authors
is that libraries should not rely on the data
presented in College Students’ Perceptions of
Libraries and Information Resources for mak-
ing decisions in their local environments.
Use local data for local decisions. At many
conferences and workshops, presenters
are informing their audiences that books
are the first things that students think of
when they think about libraries. Yet the
aggregated survey results indicated that
the building/environment is the first thing
that is thought about for the two libraries
in this study. The demography, makeup,
and other local traits of Institution A
are such that building/environment is the
first library thought from their students.
However, books were the first library
thought from the students at Institution B,
as discussed earlier. Their environment,
range of services, and varied demogra-
phy probably more closely resemble the
respondents of the OCLC survey. The
lower percentage of undergraduates at
Institution B could explain why build-
ing/environment was not number one
in most categories. In other categories,
Institution B more closely resembled
the OCLC responses than Institution A.
Libraries should compare themselves to
the demographic charts in the Appendix
to potentially see what their own students
may be thinking and then test those sup-
positions with a local study of their own.
Local factors are likely to have played
a role in the answers given by students
at each institution. At Institution A, the
library enjoys a close relationship with its
students. Nearly 75 percent of the student
body lives on campus and there are very
few public spaces that students can use
for study other than the library. A 1991
addition created a beautiful atrium space
that is a campus favorite and accounts for
many of the positive comments about the
library as place. On the other hand, the
original wing of the building has been
largely untouched since it was built in
1956 and accounts for many of the frus-
trations students feel with uncomfortable
furniture and the lack of electrical outlets.
Institution A was one of the first laptop
campuses in the country and provides
students with a new laptop and printer
as freshmen and again in their junior
year—all as part of their tuition. Thus,
there are no issues with outdated or
crowded computer labs, but the laptop
environment creates a strong demand
(and frustration) for electrical capability.
Institution B underwent a major
beautification effort from 2005 to 2007.
Prior to that time, the main library had
been described as “prison-like” by many
students. The way the library used to look
may be a major factor in why the build-
ing/environment was not the number
one response for all questions except the
“negative associations” question. In addi-
tion, at the time this survey was taken in
the spring of 2007, the library did not have
an information commons, collaboratories,
24X5 space, or as many group spaces
outfitted with comfortable furniture. The
library currently has all of those features.
As a result, the survey results could be
very different if taken now.
The need for further research is clear. It
would be useful to replicate this survey at
the research library level, both with public
and private members of the Association
of Research Libraries (ARL). In addition,
different types of libraries could benefit
from conducting this survey, specifically
special and public libraries. The authors
suspect that the results of the survey
taken at a public library might more
closely resemble the OCLC survey re-
sults because of the range of services and
demographics. The authors also strongly
recommend that any libraries looking for
data to renovate or upgrade local services
consider conducting this survey. Special
libraries, for example, may have a very
different response in terms of the reference
response, and this would surely impact
any recommendations for change. Both
institutions will be sharing these survey
findings with their respective provosts as
they impact budget, service, and renova-
tion decisions for the future.
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 485
Comparisons Between Institution for Degrees Awarded and Faculty
2006-
2007
Degrees Awarded Faculty
Bachelors Masters Doctoral Law Medical Budgeted
FTE
Undergrad
Stud/fac
ratio
Tenured Held
doctorate/
terminal
degree
Inst. A 967 533 21 163 106 1,315.3 9.6 62% 81.1%
Inst. B 2,195 908 74 1,003.72 16.1% 39.2% 78.3%
Appendix A - Institutional Profiles
2007-2008
Admissions/Retention Rates
# 1st time
degree
seeking
Freshman
# 1st
time
degree
seeking
Transfer
% of
Freshman
applicants
accepted
% of
Freshman
enrolled
Avg SAT
Scores for
Enrolled
1st time
Freshman
Retention %
of Fall 2006
Freshman
returned in
Fall 2007
Graduated
% of Freshman
who entered in
Fall 2001
Inst. A 1,124 47 43% 16% 1,316 93.6% 99.5
graduated in
6 years
Inst. B 2,447 1,368 60% 30% 1,039 75% 50%
graduated in
6 years
Institutional Cost Comparisons
2007-2008 Costs Budget
Full time Tuition/Fees Room & Board Total Expenses
Inst. A $34,330 $9,500 257,967,000
Inst. B $4,029 in state $6,151 273,884,654
$15,297 out of state
Undergraduate Student Comparisons
Institution A Institution B
White 84.5% White 66.4%
African
American
6.5% African
American
21.4%
American
Indian
.5% American
Indian
<1%
Asian/
Pacific
5.1% Asian/
Pacific
3.9%
Hispanic 1.8% Hispanic 2.7%
Unknown 1.6% Unknown 5.4%
Graduate Student Comparisons
Institution A Institution B
White 79.7% White 72.2%
African
American
9.7% African
American
14.3%
American
Indian
.4% American
Indian
<1%
Asian/
Pacific
5.8% Asian/
Pacific
5.0%
Hispanic 2.4% Hispanic 1.9%
Unknown 2.0% Unknown 6.1%
Demographics
486 College & Research Libraries September 2009
Appendix B - Data Comparisons
TABLE 1
OCLC Comparisons
Question 1: “What do you feel is the main purpose of a library?”
OCLC Merged
1. Information 49% Building/environment 38%
2. Books 32% Materials 35%
3. Research 20% Research 34%
4. Entertainment 11% Information 26%
5. Materials 10.5% Books 12%
6. Reading 5% Reading 3%
Entertainment 3%
7. Building/Environment 5% Unknown 1%
Question 2: “What is the first thing that you think of when you think of a library?”
OCLC Merged
1. Books 70% Building/environment 45%
2. Building/environment 12% Books 43%
3. Information 8% Research 16%
4. Research 5% Materials 13%
5. Materials 2% Information 9%
6. Entertainment 1.5% Unknown 8%
7. Reference 0.5% Reading 1%
Reference 1%
Question 3: “Please describe your positive association with the library”
OCLC Merged
1. Products & Offerings 61% Facility/environment 47%
2. Facility/environment 13% Products & Offerings 46%
3. Staff 9% Staff 25%
4. Customer/User Service 4% Customer/User Service 4%
Unknown 2%
Question 4: “Please describe your negative association with the library.”
OCLC Merged
1. Products & Offerings 39% Facility/environment 51%
2. Facility/environment 25% Unknown 22%
3. Customer/user service 23% Products & Offerings 14%
4. Staff 6% Customer/User Service 12%
Staff 4%
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 487
Question 5: “If you could provide one piece of advice to your library, what would it
be?”
OCLC Merged
1. Products & Offerings 27% Facility/environment 40%
2. Facility/environment 23% Products & Offerings 31%
3. Customer/user service 22% Customer/user service 14%
4. Staff 9% Satisfaction 13%
5. Satisfaction 5% Staff 4%
Unknown 3%
TABLE 2
Institutional Comparison
Question 1: What do you feel is the main purpose of a library?
Institution A Institution B
1. Building/environment 49% Information 33%
2. Research 36% Materials 33%
3. Materials 36% Research 32%
4. Information 19% Building/environment 27%
5. Books 13% Books 10%
6. Reading 3% Entertainment 3%
7. Entertainment 2% Reading 3%
8. Unknown 1% Unknown 1%
Question 2: “What is the first thing that you think of when you think of a library?”
Institution A Institution B
1. Building/environment 55% Books 45%
2. Books 41% Building/environment 34%
3. Research 16% Materials 17%
4. Materials 9% Research 16%
5. Information 4% Information 13%
6. Unknown 3% Unknown 2%
7. Reading 1% Reading 1%
8. Reference 0% Reference 1%
Question 3: “Please describe your positive associations with the library.”
Institution A Institution B
1. Facility/environment 62% Products & Offerings 49%
2. Products & Offerings 43% Facility/environment 33%
3. Staff 22% Staff 28%
4. Customer/user service 19% Customer/user service 18%
5. Unknown 1% Unknown 3%
488 College & Research Libraries September 2009
TABLE 2
Institutional Comparison
Question 4: “Please describe your negative association with the library.”
Institution A Institution B
1. Facility/environment 61% Facility/environment 41%
2. Unknown 19% Unknown 24%
3. Products & Offerings 12% Products & Offerings 17%
4. Customer/user service 9% Customer/user service 14%
5. Staff 3% Staff 6%
Question 5: “If you could provide one piece of advice to your library, what would it
be?”
Institution A Institution B
1. Facility/environment 50% Products & Offerings 35%
2. Products & Offerings 27% Facility/environment 29%
3. Satisfaction 11% Customer/user service 16%
4. Customer/user service 11% Satisfaction 13%
5. Staff 2% Staff 5%
6. Unknown 2% Unknown 5%
TABLE 3
Age Comparison
Question 1: What do you feel is the main purpose of a library?
18-24 25 & Over
1. Building/environment 48% Information 38%
2. Research 36% Materials 34%
3. Materials 35% Research 30%
4. Information 19% Building/environment 21%
5. Books 13% Books 9%
6. Reading 4% Entertainment 4%
7. Entertainment 2% Unknown 2%
8. Unknown 1% Reading 1%
Question 2: “What is the first thing that you think of when you think of a library?”
18-24 25 & Over
1. Building/environment 53% Books 42%
2. Books 43% Building/environment 30%
3. Research 15% Materials 21%
4. Materials 9% Research 19%
5. Information 4% Information 16%
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 489
TABLE 3
Age Comparison
Question 2: “What is the first thing that you think of when you think of a library?”
18-24 25 & Over
6. Unknown 3% Unknown 2%
7. Reading 1% Reading 1%
8. Reference <1% Reference 1%
Question 3: “Please describe your positive associations with the library.”
18-24 25 & Over
1. Facility/environment 56% Products & Offerings 54%
2. Products & Offerings 42% Facility/environment 31%
3. Staff 22% Staff 31%
4. Customer/user service 16% Customer/user service 23%
5. Unknown 2% Unknown 2%
Question 4: “Please describe your negative association with the library.”
18-24 25 & Over
1. Facility/environment 57% Facility/environment 40%
2. Unknown 19% Unknown 25%
3. Products & Offerings 13% Products & Offerings 17%
4. Customer/user service 10% Customer/user service 15%
5. Staff 4% Staff 6%
Question 5: “If you could provide one piece of advice to your library, what would it
be?”
18-24 25 & Over
1. Facility/environment 48% Products & Offerings 38%
2. Products & Offerings 27% Facility/environment 25%
3. Satisfaction 13% Customer/user service 15%
4. Satisfaction 12% Satisfaction 15%
5. Unknown 3% Staff 6%
6. Staff 2% Unknown 3%
490 College & Research Libraries September 2009
TABLE 4
Gender Comparison
Question 1: What do you feel is the main purpose of a library?
Males Females
1. Building/environment 42% Building/environment 37%
2. Materials 33% Materials 35%
3. Research 32% Research 35%
4. Information 25% Information 26%
5. Books 11% Books 12%
6. Entertainment 2% Reading 4%
7. Reading 1% Entertainment 3%
8. Unknown 1% Unknown 1%
Question 2: “What is the first thing that you think of when you think of a library?”
Males Females
1. Building/environment 46% Building/environment 45%
2. Books 40% Books 45%
3. Research 16% Research 16%
4. Materials 12% Materials 14%
5. Unknown 3% Information 8%
6. Information 2% Unknown 2%
7. Reading 1% Reading 1%
8. Reference 1% Reference <1%
Question 3: “Please describe your positive associations with the library.”
Males Females
1. Facility/environment 51% Facility/environment 46%
2. Products & Offerings 47% Products & Offerings 46%
3. Staff 25% Staff 26%
4. Customer/user service 17% Customer/user service 20%
5. Unknown 2% Unknown 2%
Question 4: “Please describe your negative association with the library.”
Males Females
1. Facility/environment 51% Facility/environment 51%
2. Unknown 23% Unknown 21%
3. Products & Offerings 15% Products & Offerings 14%
4. Customer/user service 11% Customer/user service 12%
5. Staff 2% Staff 5%
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 491
TABLE 4
Gender Comparison
Question 5: “If you could provide one piece of advice to your library, what would it
be?”
Males Females
1. Facility/environment 42% Facility/environment 39%
2. Products & Offerings 32% Products & Offerings 31%
3. Satisfaction 14% Customer/user service 15%
4. Customer/user service 10% Satisfaction 12%
5. Unknown 4% Staff 4%
6. Staff 3% Unknown 3%
TABLE 5
Residency Comparison
Question 1: What do you feel is the main purpose of a library?
On-Campus Off-Campus
1. Building/environment 51% Materials 34%
2. Research 38% Research 32%
3. Materials 36% Information 31%
4. Information 19% Building/environment 30%
5. Books 14% Books 10%
6. Reading 4% Entertainment 3%
7. Entertainment 3% Reading 3%
8. Unknown 1% Unknown 1%
Question 2: “What is the first thing that you think of when you think of a library?”
On-Campus Off-Campus
1. Building/environment 56% Books 42%
2. Books 44% Building/environment 39%
3. Research 16% Research 16%
4. Materials 9% Materials 16%
5. Information 4% Information 12%
6. Unknown 3% Unknown 2%
7. Reading 1% Reading 1%
8. Reference <1% Reference <1%
492 College & Research Libraries September 2009
TABLE 5
Residency Comparison
Question 3: “Please describe your positive associations with the library.”
On-Campus Off-Campus
1. Facility/environment 59% Products & Offerings 48%
2. Products & Offerings 44% Facility/environment 40%
3. Staff 22% Staff 27%
4. Customer/user service 17% Customer/user service 20%
5. Unknown 1% Unknown 3%
Question 4: “Please describe your negative association with the library.”
On-Campus Off-Campus
1. Facility/environment 58% Facility/environment 47%
2. Unknown 21% Unknown 22%
3. Products & Offerings 11% Products & Offerings 17%
4. Customer/user service 9% Customer/user service 13%
5. Staff 3% Staff 5%
Question 5: “If you could provide one piece of advice to your library, what would it
be?”
On-Campus Off-Campus
1. Facility/environment 51% Products & Offerings 34%
2. Products & Offerings 27% Facility/environment 33%
3. Customer/user service 12% Customer/user service 14%
4. Satisfaction 12% Satisfaction 13%
5. Unknown 3% Staff 5%
6. Staff 2% Unknown 4%
Library Service Perceptions: A Study of Two Universities 493
TA
B
L
E
6
Y
ea
r-
in
-S
ch
oo
l C
om
pa
ri
so
n
Q
ue
st
io
n
1:
W
ha
t d
o
yo
u
fe
el
is
th
e
m
ai
n
pu
rp
os
e
of
a
li
br
ar
y?
1s
t U
G
Y
ea
r
2n
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
3r
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
4t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
5t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
M
as
te
rs
D
oc
to
ra
l
1s
t P
ro
f
1.
B
ld
g/
en
v
47
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
58
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
52
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
43
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
37
%
In
fo
rm
3
8%
M
at
er
ia
ls
4
4%
B
ld
g/
en
v
62
%
2.
R
es
ea
rc
h
41
%
R
es
ea
rc
h
42
%
M
at
er
ia
ls
3
8%
R
es
ea
rc
h
38
%
M
at
er
ia
ls
3
7%
M
at
er
ia
ls
3
5%
R
es
ea
rc
h
33
%
M
at
er
ia
ls
2
8%
3.
M
at
er
ia
ls
3
0%
M
at
er
ia
ls
3
4%
R
es
ea
rc
h
31
%
M
at
er
ia
ls
3
5%
R
es
ea
rc
h
29
%
R
es
ea
rc
h
29
%
In
fo
rm
3
0%
R
es
ea
rc
h
26
%
4.
In
fo
rm
2
2%
In
fo
rm
1
7%
In
fo
rm
2
0%
In
fo
rm
1
9%
In
fo
rm
1
8%
B
ld
g/
en
v
22
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
22
%
In
fo
rm
2
1%
5.
B
oo
ks
1
5%
B
oo
ks
1
3%
B
oo
ks
1
7%
B
oo
ks
9
%
B
oo
ks
1
3%
B
oo
ks
9
%
B
oo
ks
1
0%
B
oo
ks
5
%
6.
R
ea
di
ng
3
%
R
ea
di
ng
4
%
E
nt
er
ta
in
5
%
R
ea
di
ng
7
%
U
nk
no
w
n
5%
E
nt
er
ta
in
4
%
E
nt
er
ta
in
1
%
R
ea
di
ng
2
%
7.
E
nt
er
ta
in
1
%
E
nt
er
ta
in
3
%
R
ea
di
ng
3
%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
R
ea
di
ng
2
%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
8.
U
nk
no
w
n
1%
U
nk
no
w
n
1%
E
nt
er
ta
in
0
%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
Q
ue
st
io
n
2:
W
ha
t i
s
th
e
fir
st
th
in
g
th
at
y
ou
th
in
k
of
w
he
n
yo
u
th
in
k
of
a
li
br
ar
y?
1s
t U
G
Y
ea
r
2n
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
3r
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
4t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
5t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
M
as
te
rs
D
oc
to
ra
l
1s
t P
ro
f
1.
B
ld
g/
en
v
54
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
58
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
57
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
53
%
B
ld
g/
en
v
61
%
B
oo
ks
4
3%
B
oo
ks
4
4%
B
ld
g/
en
v
73
%
2.
B
oo
ks
5
2%
B
oo
ks
4
2%
B
oo
ks
4
0%
B
oo
ks
4
6%
M
at
er
ia
ls
2
2%
B
ld
g/
en
v
33
%
M
at
er
ia
ls
2
7%
B
oo
ks
3
6%
3.
R
es
ea
rc
h
16
%
R
es
ea
rc
h
14
%
R
es
ea
rc
h
16
%
R
es
ea
rc
h
18
%
R
es
ea
rc
h
19
%
R
es
ea
rc
h
20
%
In
fo
rm
2
5%
M
at
er
ia
ls
5
%
4.
In
fo
rm
6
%
M
at
er
ia
ls
1
2%
M
at
er
ia
ls
1
1%
M
at
er
ia
l 1
1%
In
fo
rm
1
7%
M
at
er
ia
ls
1
8%
B
ld
g/
en
v
20
%
U
nk
no
w
n
4%
5.
M
at
er
ia
ls
3
%
In
fo
rm
5
%
In
fo
rm
4
%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
B
oo
ks
1
7%
In
fo
rm
1
3%
R
es
ea
rc
h
13
%
R
es
ea
rc
h
4%
6.
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
U
nk
no
w
n
4%
U
nk
no
w
n
3%
In
fo
rm
2
%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
7.
R
ea
di
ng
0
%
R
ea
di
ng
0
%
R
ea
di
ng
1
%
R
ea
di
ng
1
%
R
ea
di
ng
1
%
R
ea
di
ng
1
%
8.
R
ef
er
en
ce
0
%
R
ef
er
en
ce
0
%
R
ef
er
en
ce
1
%
R
ef
er
en
ce
1
%
494 College & Research Libraries September 2009
Q
ue
st
io
n
3:
P
le
as
e
de
sc
ri
be
y
ou
r
po
si
ti
ve
a
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
s
w
it
h
th
e
lib
ra
ry
1s
t U
G
Y
ea
r
2n
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
3r
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
4t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
5t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
M
as
te
rs
D
oc
to
ra
l
1s
t P
ro
f
1.
Fa
c/
en
v
65
%
Fa
c/
en
v
56
%
Fa
c/
en
v
60
%
Fa
c/
en
v
56
%
Fa
c/
en
v
55
%
Pr
od
/O
ff
5
3%
Pr
od
/O
ff
5
9%
Fa
c/
en
v
75
%
2.
Pr
od
/o
ff
er
4
1%
Pr
od
/o
ff
er
4
4%
Pr
od
/o
ff
4
7%
Pr
od
/o
ff
4
5%
Pr
od
/o
ff
4
2%
Fa
c/
en
v
37
%
St
af
f 3
0%
Pr
od
/o
ff
2
9%
3.
St
af
f 1
8%
St
af
f 2
3%
St
af
f 2
2%
St
af
f 2
4%
St
af
f 2
4%
St
af
f 3
3%
C
us
t s
er
v
29
%
St
af
f 2
1%
4.
C
us
t s
er
v
15
%
C
us
t s
er
v
19
%
C
us
t s
er
v
14
%
C
us
t s
er
v
16
%
C
us
t s
er
v
8%
C
us
t s
er
v
24
%
Fa
c/
en
v
18
%
C
us
t s
er
v
11
%
5.
U
nk
no
w
n
1%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
U
nk
no
w
n
3%
U
nk
no
w
n
1%
U
nk
no
w
n
4%
Q
ue
st
io
n
4:
P
le
as
e
de
sc
ri
be
y
ou
r
ne
ga
ti
ve
a
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
s
w
it
h
th
e
lib
ra
ry
.
1s
t U
G
Y
ea
r
2n
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
3r
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
4t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
5t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
M
as
te
rs
D
oc
to
ra
l
1s
t P
ro
f
1.
Fa
c/
en
v
59
%
Fa
c/
en
v
59
%
Fa
c/
en
v
60
%
Fa
c/
en
v
65
%
Fa
c/
en
v
53
%
Fa
c/
en
v
46
%
Fa
c/
en
v
37
%
Fa
c/
en
v
72
%
2.
U
nk
no
w
n
29
%
U
nk
no
w
n
24
%
U
nk
no
w
n
17
%
C
us
t s
er
v
17
%
U
nk
no
w
n
32
%
Pr
od
/o
ff
2
3%
U
nk
no
w
n
28
%
U
nk
no
w
n
19
%
3.
C
us
t s
er
v
6%
Pr
od
/o
ff
1
3%
Pr
od
/o
ff
1
4%
U
nk
no
w
n
12
%
Pr
od
/o
ff
1
3%
U
nk
no
w
n
22
%
C
us
t s
er
v
24
%
C
us
t s
er
v
7%
4.
Pr
od
/o
ff
6
%
C
us
t s
er
v
7%
C
us
t s
er
v
10
%
Pr
od
/o
ff
1
2%
C
us
t s
er
v
5%
C
us
t s
er
v
15
%
Pr
od
/o
ff
1
5%
Pr
od
/o
ff
6
%
5.
St
af
f 4
%
St
af
f 3
%
St
af
f 8
%
St
af
f 3
%
St
af
f 3
%
St
af
f 6
%
St
af
f 3
%
St
af
f 4
%
Q
ue
st
io
n
5:
I
f y
ou
c
ou
ld
p
ro
vi
de
o
ne
p
ie
ce
o
f a
dv
ic
e
to
y
ou
r
lib
ra
ry
, w
ha
t w
ou
ld
it
b
e?
1s
t U
G
Y
ea
r
2n
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
3r
d
U
G
Y
ea
r
4t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
5t
h
U
G
Y
ea
r
M
as
te
rs
D
oc
to
ra
l
1s
t P
ro
f
1.
Fa
c/
en
v
52
%
Fa
c/
en
v
51
%
Fa
c/
en
v
59
%
Fa
c/
en
v
52
%
Fa
c/
en
v
44
%
Pr
od
/o
ff
4
2%
Pr
od
/o
ff
5
2%
Fa
c/
en
v
73
%
2.
Pr
od
/o
ff
2
5%
Pr
od
/o
ff
2
8%
Pr
od
/o
ff
3
4%
Pr
od
/o
ff
2
6%
C
us
t s
er
v
24
%
Fa
c/
en
v
30
%
Fa
c/
en
v
19
%
Pr
od
/o
ff
2
1%
3.
C
us
t s
er
v
20
%
Sa
tis
fa
ct
1
8%
C
us
t s
er
v
11
%
C
us
t s
er
v
17
%
Pr
od
/o
ff
2
1%
C
us
t s
er
v
17
%
Sa
tis
fa
ct
1
6%
C
us
t s
er
v
6%
4.
Sa
tis
fa
ct
1
6%
C
us
t s
er
v
10
%
Sa
tis
fa
ct
9
%
Sa
tis
fa
ct
1
1%
Sa
tis
fa
ct
1
5%
Sa
tis
fa
ct
1
6%
C
us
t s
er
v
16
%
St
af
f 6
%
5.
St
af
f 4
%
U
nk
no
w
n
5%
St
af
f 2
%
U
nk
no
w
n
4%
St
af
f 9
%
St
af
f 5
%
St
af
f 3
%
Sa
tis
fa
ct
4
%
6.
U
nk
no
w
n
3%
St
af
f 2
%
U
nk
no
w
n
2%
St
af
f 3
%
U
nk
no
w
n
6%
U
nk
no
w
n
4%
U
nk
no
w
n
3%
U
nk
no
w
n
4%
Notes
1. OCLC, Perceptions of Libraries and Infor-
mation Resources: A Report to the OCLC Member-
ship (2005). Available online at www.oclc.org/
reports/2005perceptions.htm. [Accessed 25
November 2008].
2. OCLC, College Students’ Perceptions of
Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to
the OCLC Membership (2006). Available online
at www.oclc.org/reports/perceptionscollege.
htm. [Accessed 25 November 2008].
3. Carol Tenopir, “Perception of Library
Value,” Library Journal 131, no. 20 (2006): 36.
4. Lesley Williams, “Making ‘E’ Visible,”
Library Journal 131, no. 11 (2006): 40–43.
5. Michelle Jeske, “Who Knows What The
Future Will Bring? Get Prepared!” Colorado
Libraries 32, no. 2 (2006): 14–18.
6. Ameet Doshi, “How Gaming Could
Improve Information Literacy,” Computers in
Libraries 26, no. 5 (2006): 14–17.
7. Daniel Walters, “Thoughts About Our
Web Sites, Catalogs, and Databases,” Public
Libraries 45, no. 3 (2006): 7–9.
8. Paul T. Jaeger, “Public Libraries, Values,
Trust, and E-Government,” Information Technol-
ogy and Libraries 26, no. 4 (2007): 34–43.
9. Michael Casey and Michael Stephens.
“Insights from the Front Line,” Library Journal
133, no. 3 (2008): 6–27.
10. John Cell, “CIP on the Moon,” Library
Journal Net-Connect (Jan. 15, 2008): 2–5.
11. Shu Liu, “Engaging Users: The Future
of Academic Library Web Sites,” College &
Research Libraries 69, no. 1 (2008): 6–27.
12. Nancy F. Stimson, “Library Change
as a Branding Opportunity: Connect, Reflect,
Research, Discover,” C&RL News 68, no. 11
(2007): 694–98.
13. Elizabeth M. Karle, “Invigorating the
Academic Library Experience: Creative Pro-
gramming Ideas,” C&RL News 69, no. 3 (2008):
141–44.
14. Trudi Ballardo Hahn, “Mass Digitiza-
tion: Implications for Preserving the Scholarly
Record,” Library Resources & Technical Services
52, no. 1 (2008): 18–26.
15. Dick Kaser, “Sanity Check,” Information
Today 23, no. 2 (2006): 16.
16. Scott Condon, “Adapt or Die,” Alki 22,
no.1 (2006): 25–26.
17. The OCLC study did not report numeri-
cal findings, only graphical information with
rough indications of percentage.
18. This paper follows the OCLC study,
which changed terminology from building/
environment in questions 1 and 2 to facility/
environment in questions 3 to 5.
Wilfrid Laurier University Press
Order through your wholesaler
or call 1-800-565-9523
Unsettled Remains
Babies for the Nation
Transnational Canadas
Canadian Literature and
the Postcolonial Gothic
The Medicalization of Motherhood
in Quebec, 1910–1970
Anglo-Canadian Literature
and Globalization
Cynthia Sugars and Gerry Turcotte, editors
Kit Dobson
$38.95 paper • 978-1-55458-054-5
•
$38.95 paper • 978-1-55458-058-3
Studies in Childhood and Family in Canada series
$36.95 paper • 978-1-55458-063-7 • TransCanada series
Examines how Canadian writers have
combined a postcolonial awareness with
gothic metaphors of monstrosity and
haunting in response to Canadian history.
won the Clio-
Québec Prize, the Lionel Groulx–Yves-
Saint-Germain Prize, and the Jean-Charles-
Falardeau Prize.
First sustained inquiry into the relationship
between globalization and Canadian litera-
ture written in English.
Denyse Baillargeon Translated by W. Donald Wilson
Un Québec en mal d’enfants
Available at the ALA store at
http://www.alastore.ala.org/
50 East Huron Street • Chicago, IL 60611
(800) 545-2433 ext. 2529 • acrl@ala.org
NEW ACRL PubLiCAtioNs
Teaching Literary Research: Challenges in a Changing
Environment: ACRL Publications in Librarianship #60
Kathleen A. Johnson and Steven R. Harris
This volume is a collection of essays that explores the relationship
between information literacy and literary research. English profes-
sors and librarians provide perspectives on this relationship through
presentations of best practices in teaching students from first year
undergraduate through graduate levels.
Working Together: Collaborative Information Practices
for Organizational Learning
Mary M. Somerville
Describes and illustrates combined approaches to working to-
gether from Europe, Asia, Australia, and the United States that
offer rich opportunities to harness information in the pursuit
of learning. Topics include individual and collective learning,
systems thinking, and informed learning.
$55.00 (ACRL members less 10%); 278p., 978-0-8389-8509-0
100p., 978-0-8389-8531-1
The Library Instruction Cookbook
Ryan L.Sittler and Douglas Cook
A practical collection of “learning recipes,” each
of which includes a plan for conducting a specific
type of learning session and which indicates how
the recipe reflects specific ACRL Information
Literacy Competency Standards for Higher
Education.
$48.00 (ACRL members less 10%)
196p., 978-0-8389-8511-3 New!
ComiNg
sooN!