Transcript Grant Writing for Information Agencies

Perceptions of Value and
Value Beyond Perceptions
Carol Tenopir
University of Tennessee
[email protected]
web.utk.edu/~tenopir/
What
Who
Why
What:
Journals
What: Articles
What: Parts of articles
Why?
1.
2.
3.
To make decisions and rethink old ones
To demonstrate return on investment or the
value of the library’s collections and services
To improve services and collections



Who = Readers
What = Scholarly Articles
Why = To provide data useful for
librarians, publishers, researchers
Explicit Value of Reading
Articles



Ask directly
What was the purpose of your reading?
How valuable was the reading to you?
Principal Purpose of Reading
9.3%
Research
10.5%
Teaching
8.9%
Current Awareness
50.7%
Writing
20.6%
Other
Universities 2004-2006
Purposes of Readings by
Students




Help complete a course assignment or
required reading in a course (46-50%)
Thesis/dissertation (33-37%)
Keep up with the literature (7-8%)
Personal interest (2-4%)
Values of reading by reading purposes
Values of Reading
Not at all
important
writing proposals or reports
research
teaching
current awareness
Somewhat
important
Absolutely
essential
2.0%
54.7%
43.3%
1.0%
59.9%
39.2%
.7%
64.7%
34.6%
6.3%
85.7%
7.9%
Value of Reading in Order of
Frequency of Responses (faculty)








Inspired new thinking/ideas
Improved results
Changed focus
Resolved technical problems
Saved time
Faster completion
Collaboration
Wasted my time
(33%)
(25%)
(17%)
( 7%)
( 6%)
( 4%)
( 3%)
( .6%)
Surveys Using
Critical Incident




Specific (last incident of reading)
Includes all reading--e & print, library &
personal
Purpose, motivation, outcomes
Last reading=random sample of
readings
What faculty say…



How did we ever get along without
electronic journals?
The ability to obtain articles online has
made [my work] much more efficient and
more thorough.
I use electronic media for 90% of my
literature searching. This has been true
for 10 years now.
What faculty say…

I have dropped some personal
subscriptions as they have become
available on-line. I rarely visit the library
in person anymore… which, compared
with the ease and convenience of doing
literature searches, downloading and
printing from my office/computer, takes
too much time.
What students say…


Finding articles online is so much easier
and faster than finding articles in dusty
journals in musty corners of the library.
I have found electronic journals an
invaluable aide as it means I do not have
to travel to the Uni for every little article
(which takes AT LEAST 1 hour.)
Implicit Values of Reading
Articles




are easier to collect (downloads)
don’t necessarily involve users directly
(log files)
are easier to quantify
are particularly valuable for measuring
changes over time, such as increased
use of e-journals.
Implicit Value of Reading
Articles


Users are “willing to pay” with their time
-Faculty spend on average ~143-159
hours per year just reading
-Medical faculty spend on average
~168 hours per year just reading
Achievers read more than others
Average Articles Read per year
per University Faculty Member
300
252
250
216
200
150
150
172
188
100
50
0
1977
1984
*280 with outliers
93-98
00-03
04-06*
Average Minutes Per Article
Average Minutes per Article by University
Faculty Member
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
48
47
36
1977
19931998
20002003
34
20042006
Definition of Contingent
Valuation
Contingent Valuation is an economic
method used to assess the benefits of
non-priced goods and services (e.g.,
libraries or specific library services) by
examining the implication of not having
the product or service. (Donald W. King)
I would not bother
getting the information
I would obtain the
information from
another source (ILL
most common)
19% (209)
81% (889)
Proportion of Readings of
Scholarly Articles by Faculty
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Personal
1977
Library-Provided
1993-1998
2001-2003
Other
2004-2006
Older articles are judged more valuable & are
more likely to come from libraries
10.3%
Library
Personal
33.5%
18.1%
53.2%
Separate
28.8%
56.3%
1st Year
17.5%
2-5 Years
9.2%
73.3%
Over 5 Years
Readings by Students


Only 18-25% of readings of current year
articles
Over 80% of readings from library, mostly
electronic collections
As You Like It
All’s Well That Ends Well
All Individual Reports
web.utk.edu/~tenopir/
research/survey_instruments.html