Transcript Bruce Wilson

Measuring Value and Outcomes of
Reading
Fiesole
April 2010
Dr. Carol Tenopir
University of Tennessee
[email protected]
Methods for measuring value
Usage
Citations
Experiments
Critical incident
Contingent valuation
Focus groups
Observations
Return on Investment
Perceptions
Conjoint measurement
Interviews
Critical Incident Technique
• Surveys by Tenopir and King (1977-present)
• Ask respondents about most recent reading
• Ask questions on purpose, motivation and
outcomes of specific reading
• In-depth picture of complexity of readings
Critical Incident
“The following questions in this section
refer to the SCHOLARLY ARTICLE
YOU READ MOST RECENTLY, even
if you had read the article previously.
Note that this last reading may not be
typical, but will help us establish the
range of patterns in reading.”
Principal Purpose of Reading
(Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2006, n=1433)
Research
9%
Teaching
11%
9%
51%
Current
Awareness
Proposals
20%
Other
Source of reading by purpose of reading
by faculty
(Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2005, n=1412)
Library provided
3%
5%
9%
5%
7%
5%
14%
38%
11%
50%
18%
Personal
subscription
Open Web
37%
3%
3%
Teaching
10%
Research
Colleagues
30%
7%
47%
Current Awareness
School
department
subscription
Other
Format of articles read by science faculty
(Faculty in U.S., n=727)
70%
60%
50%
Print
40%
Electronic
30%
20%
10%
0%
Research
Teaching
Current Awareness
Print or Electronic
(Faculty in US, 2000-2006, n=923)
Electronic
24 %
Print
76 %
15 %
85 %
30%
LibraryProvided
70 %
Other
Personal
Subscriptions
Library E-Collections are Most Common
Source of Additional Readings
Library collection
Scientist Readings Per Year
140
131
120
113
120
Other
115
92 96
100
101
80
60
40
52
37
20
0
1977
1984
1993
Year of Survey
2000-03
2004-06
121
Readings for Research
• More likely to be rated “absolutely
essential”
• More likely to be found by searching
• More likely to be from e-sources
• More likely to be from the library
Value of Reading in Order of Frequency
of Responses (Faculty in U.S., n=880)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inspired new thinking/ideas
Improved results
Changed focus
Resolved technical problems
Saved time
Faster completion
Collaboration
Wasted my time
(55%)
(40%)
(27%)
(12%)
(12%)
( 7% )
( 6% )
( <1%)
Comments (2008) tell us that
E-Collections improve…
• Efficiency and productivity
“[e-access] saves me a lot of time which can be
used for more extensive reading.”
• Writing and proposals
“[E-access] is essential for scientific writing.”
• Research and teaching
“I could not do the kind of research or teaching I do
without these resources.”
Average number of articles read annually by
publishing productivity
(number of articles published in the past 2 years)
(Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2005, n=1364)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Least
productive
(0-1)
Medium
productive
(2-5)
Most
productive
(over 5)
Principal purpose of reading by publishing
productivity
(number of articles published in the past 2 years)
(Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2005, n=1366)
70%
Least
productive
(0-1)
60%
50%
Medium
productive
(2-5)
40%
Most
productive
(over 5)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Research
Teaching
Current
awareness
Writing
Other
Proportion of readings that contain information
that is rated as absolutely essential to the
principal purpose
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Research
Teaching
Administration
Current
Awareness
Writing
Proposals
Proportion of readings that contain information
that is rated as absolutely essential to the
principal purpose
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Library Source
Personal Source
Others
National differences
 Faculty in Finland access articles
more at the office or lab, less at home
 Faculty in Australia have the
highest amounts of e-reading and
report a significant amount (6.7%) of
readings done while travelling
 Finnish scholars
report a higher use of
searching in locating
e-articles
 Faculty in Taiwan, Japan
and Finland have a higher
percentage of readings
from the library
Carol Tenopir
Return on Investment (ROI)
ROI is a quantitative measure expressed as a ratio
of the value returned to the institution for each
monetary unit invested in the library.
For every $/€/£ spent on the library,
the university received ‘X’ $/€/£ in return.
Demonstrate that library collections contribute to
income-generating activities
ROI Model for University of
Illinois (Phase 1)
$4.38 grant income for each $1.00 invested in
library
(% of faculty who rated citations in proposals from
library as important to the proposal x % of
proposals funded / library budget)
Phase 2: Value of E-journals in Grants
8 institutions in 8 countries
Phase 2: Findings
Research
STM
• 13.2:1 to 15.5:1
Research and
Teaching
STM/Hum/SS
• 1.3:1 to 3.4:1
Research and
Teaching
• Under 1:1
Phase 2: Why Does ROI of Ejournals in Grants Vary?
• ROI depends on institutional mission
• Research institutes have very large grants
• Teaching universities have smaller and fewer
grants
• ROI varies depending on methods of
government funding
• Be cautious comparing ROI across institutions
• Phase 3 will expand scope
Some Final Thoughts on
Measuring Value
•
•
•
•
Measure purposes and outcomes
Variations in value by purpose
No one method stands alone
Measures show the contribution of articles
to scholarship
For further information…
• Tenopir, C. (2009). University Investment
in the Library, Phase II: An International
Study of the Library’s Value to the Grants
Process. Report prepared for Elsevier
LibraryConnect.
For further information…
• Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S., Wu, L.
(2008). Electronic journals and changes in
scholarly article seeking and reading patterns.
Aslib Proceedings, 61 (1), 5-32.
• Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Spencer, J., Wu, L.
(2009). Variations in article seeking and reading
patterns of academics: What makes a
difference?. Library & Information Science
Research, doi 10.1016.