Transcript LibQUAL+TM Comments - University of Georgia

LibQUAL+TM Comments
•
•
•
•
The joys and heartaches
Did they talk? (450 of 918, 49%)
Comment mitosis (450 became 895)
Glib grads (39%)
Talkative
teachers (34%), Uncommunicative
undergrads (11%)
Multiple (but not nervous) breakdowns
• LibQUAL+TM categories
– Affect of service (34%)
– Information control (36%)
– Library as place (20%)
• Content keywords
• Satisfaction level
– Criticism (54%)
– Praise (42%)
Satisfaction Level by
LibQUAL+TM Category
Category
Criticism
Praise
Affect of Service
27%
72%
Information
Control
72%
26%
Library as Place
80%
19%
All Categories
54%
42%
Satisfaction Level by
Broad Discipline
Discipline
Criticism
Praise
Humanities
58%
40%
Social Sciences 48%
48%
Sciences
38%
58%
Content keywords: hot issues
Issue
Comments
Resources (IC)
230
Staff (AS)
168
Aesthetics/Comfort (LP)
116
Online Tools (IC)
70
Location of Materials (IC)
26
Resources (230 comments)
•
•
•
•
•
Comments related to Libraries collections
26% of all comments
C to P overall = 65% to 32%
But undergrads 28% to 67%
Humanities and sciences more critical;
social sciences less critical
• We just ain’t got enough (starving
researcher phenomenon)
Resources (continued)
• 100 comments about journals;
40 comments about books
• 108 comments about e-resources;
70 comments about e-journals;
7 comments about e-books
• Many subject areas mentioned, but none
stood out as especially inadequate
• Nature journals highly desired
Resources: Sample Comments
• “I am VERY UNHAPPY about having my electronic
journal access cut for nearly all the journals I have to
have for my research and for my students to learn. When
I recruit students, one of my selling points used to be the
quality and quantity of research resources available via
our library. Not any more.”
(grad student, health sciences)
• “Personally I *love* the UGA Main Library, and the full
range of the resources it provides--online. The UGA
Collection is extraordinarily strong, and I think most
faculty appreciate this fact. The resources exceed my
desires/needs. Thank you Library!”
(grad student, humanities)
Staff (168 comments)
•
•
•
•
19% of all comments
Dr. Jekyll (80%) vs. Mr. Hyde (20%)
All user groups agree
Many library departments and individuals
singled out for praise
Staff: Sample Comments
• “In my experience, staff have been very curt and almost
rude, like I was wasting their time.”
(grad student, communications)
• “I cannot adequately express how pleasantly surprised
and pleased I was when I discovered what a great library
staff we have at UGA, nor can I describe how helpful,
well informed, and willing they have been whenever I
have needed assistance. For seven years, I've really
depended on them. Thank you, Library Folks! You got
me through my doctorate and now you're helping me
with my classes.”
(faculty, education)
Aesthetics/Comfort
(116 comments)
• 13% of all comments
• C to P overall: 75% to 23%
• Faculty offered fewest comments (19), but
were most critical: 84% to 16%
• Undergrads (30 comments) were less
negative: 53% to 40%
• Grad students offered the most comments
(52) and were highly critical: 81% to 19%
Aesthetics/Comfort (continued)
• Main Library = 63 comments, 78% to 21%
• Science = 29 comments, 83% to 17%
• MLC = 17 comments, 41% to 53%
Aesthetics/Comfort (continued)
• It’s the aesthetics, stupid: Main and
Science described as “leaves much to be
desired, in need of a face lift, should be
modernized, not inviting, not inspiring to
read or study there, cold and institutional,
sterile hospital look, stodgy, rundown,
worn out, depressing, dingy, dismal, flat
ugly, that dungeon of a building, the worst
I have seen in the country”
Online Tools (70 comments)
• Comments about electronic tools used to
identify and locate resources, such as GIL,
GALILEO, the Libraries website, etc.
• 8% of all comments
• 43% from participants in sciences; 33%
from social sciences; 14% from humanities
• C to P overall: 89% to 11%
• All user groups highly critical
Online Tools: What’s not to like?
• Too much of a good thing
• Search engines don’t seem to be
find engines
• Linking = gambling
• Remote access: can’t get here from there
• GIL log-in PIN: universally despised
Online Tools: Can’t Win for Losing
• “Love GIL-Find, nice improvement”
(faculty, humanities)
• “I don’t want Google-style access to library
resources. I want precise, accurate
access to them. GIL seems to be moving
further away from that ideal with such
dumbed-down tools as GIL-Find”
(grad student, humanities)
Location of Materials
(26 comments)
• Comments about finding print materials in
the library building
• 3% of all comments
• C to P overall: 85% to 12%
• Almost all concerned Main Library
• Praise: appreciation that so much of
collection is available for shelf browsing
Location of Materials (continued)
Criticisms:
• Sequence of call numbers confusing
• Shelf labels inadequate or misleading
• Lack of order on shelves
• Not checked out but not on shelf
Leftovers
• Lots of people love us vaguely
• ILL rocks, Instruction rolls, Carla Buss
rules, LibQUAL+TM sucks
• Delivery desires and delusions
• Microfilm reader/printers: T. rex lives
• Oh, and also longer hours, more parking,
longer loan periods, unlimited online
renewals, lower fines, faster computers,
truth, justice, and caviar
LibQUAL+TM 2004, 2006, 2010
Plus ça change?
• More resources (and more and more)
• Online searching tools that find things
• Books that are where they’re supposed to
be
• Simpatico surroundings
• Unstained staff
Wanna Know More?
• ARL LibQUAL+TM website:
http://www.libqual.org
• UGA LibQUAL+TM reports, comments, etc.:
http://dataserv.libs.uga.edu/assessment/libqual.html