background on the u.k. / sconul libqual+ implementation stephen town, cranfield university
Post on 19-Dec-2015
224 views
TRANSCRIPT
Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation
Stephen Town,Cranfield University
Objectives
• To give an overview of U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation
• To present the overall results of the SCONUL Cohort
• To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learnt
UK HE Libraries survey methods
• General Satisfaction– Exit questionnaires– SCONUL Satisfaction Survey
• Designed Surveys– Satisfaction vs Importance 1989-– Priority Surveys 1993-
• Outcome measurement– ACPI project 2003-
• National Student Survey (1 Question)
Survey methods used in the UK
West, 2004A Survey of Surveys
27
18
13
11
4
22
6
Libra
LibQUAL+
In-House
SPSS
SNAP
Perception
Excel
Others
1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation
The UK approach
• Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI)
• 2003 - 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions • 2004 -17 UK & Irish HE institutions • 2005 - 16 UK & Irish HE institutions • 2006 – 20 UK & Irish HE institutions• 54 different institutions
LibQUAL+ Participants 2003
• University of Bath• Cranfield University• Royal Holloway & Bedford
New College • University of Lancaster • University of Wales,
Swansea• University of Edinburgh• University of Glasgow• University of Liverpool• University of London Library• University of Oxford• University College
Northampton
• University of Wales College Newport
• University of Gloucestershire
• De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan
University• Liverpool John Moores
University • Robert Gordon University• South Bank University• University of the West of
England, Bristol • University of
Wolverhampton
LibQUAL+ Participants 2004
• Brunel University• Loughborough University • University of Strathclyde • University of York • Glasgow University • Sheffield University • Trinity College, Dublin • UMIST + University of
Manchester• University of Liverpool
• Anglia Polytechnic University
• University of Westminster
• London South Bank University
• Napier University • Queen Margaret
University College • University College
Worcester • University of East London
LibQUAL+ Participants 2005
• University of Exeter• University of Edinburgh• University of Dundee• University of Bath• University of Ulster• University College
Northampton• University of Birmingham• Roehampton University
• University of Glasgow• University of Surrey• Royal Holloway UoL• City University• Cranfield University• University of Luton• Dublin Institute of
Technology• London South Bank
University
LibQUAL+ Participants 2006
• Cambridge University Library
• Cranfield University• Goldsmiths College• Institute of Education• Institute of Technology
Tallaght• Queen Mary, University
of London• Robert Gordon University• St. George's University of
London• University of Aberdeen• University College for the
Creative Arts
• University of Central Lancashire
• University of Glasgow• University of
Gloucestershire• University of Leeds• University of Leicester• University of Liverpool• University of the West of
England• University of Warwick• University of
Westminster• London South Bank
University
CURL
• University of Cambridge• University of Aberdeen• University of Edinburgh• University of Glasgow• University of Liverpool• University of London
Library• University of Oxford
• Sheffield University • Trinity College,
Dublin • University of
Manchester• University of
Birmingham• University of Leeds• University of
Warwick
Pre-92 & 94 Group
• Cranfield University• Royal Holloway &
Bedford New College • University of Wales,
Swansea• Brunel University• Loughborough University • Goldsmith College• Queen Mary, University
of London
• University of Dundee• University of Bath• University of Lancaster• University of York• University of Exeter• University of Surrey• University of Leicester• University of Strathclyde
CMU+
• University of Wales College Newport
• De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan
University• Liverpool John Moores
University • Robert Gordon University• South Bank University• University of the West of
England, Bristol • University of Central
Lancashire
• Anglia Polytechnic University
• University of Westminster• Napier University • Queen Margaret University
College • University of East London• Roehampton University • University of Luton• Coventry University• University of
Wolverhampton• University of Ulster
Former Colleges
• University of Gloucestershire• University College Northampton• University College Worcester
Other / Specialist Institutions
• Dublin Institute of Technology• Institute of Education• Institute of Technology Tallaght• St. George’s, University of London• University College for the Creative Arts
Overall Potential UK Sample to 2006
• Full variety of institutions• 43% of institutions*• 38% of HE students (>800,000)• 42% of Libraries• 48% of Library expenditure
*Based on Universities UK membership of 126
Time frame
• December – Registration• January – UK Training• February to May – Session I• April to June – Session I results
distributed • July – Results meeting• July to December – Session II
Dimensions of Quality
• Affect of Service• Information Control• Library as a Place
Dimensions ofLibrary Service Quality
Empathy
InformationControl
Responsiveness
Symbol
Utilitarian space
Assurance
Scope of Content
Ease of Navigation
Self-Reliance
Library as Place
LibraryServiceQuality
Model 3
Refuge
Affect of Service
Reliability
Convenience
Timeliness
Equipment
F. Heath, 2005
2003 – 5 additional questions for all SCONUL Participants
• Access to photocopying and printing facilities
• Main text and readings needed• Provision for information skills training• Helpfulness in dealing with users’ IT
problems• Availability of subject specialist
assistance
2004 – 5 local question selected from a range of over 100
Different questions tailored to local needs
Sample Survey
Sample Survey… continued
2. Results from SCONUL
Response Comparisons
• SCONUL 2003– 20 institutions – 11,919 respondents
• SCONUL 2004 – 16 institutions– 16,611 respondents
• Increase by 4,692
• SCONUL 2005– 16 institutions– 17,355 respondents
• Increase by 744
• LibQUAL+ 2003– 308 institutions– 128,958 respondents
• LibQUAL+ 2004– 202 institutions– 112,551 respondents
• Decrease by 16,407
• LibQUAL+ 2005– 199 institutions– 108,504 respondents
• Decrease by 4,047
SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005
Respondent Comparisons
• Glasgow University– 2005 = 1,384– 2004 = 2,178– 2003 = 503
• London South Bank University– 2005 = 766– 2004 = 568– 2003 = 276
Core Questions
Core Questions
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003
Overall Comparisons
Undergraduates
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2005
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003
Postgraduates
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2005
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2003
Academic Staff
Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004
Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004
Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003
Comparisons by Dimension
Affect of Service Comparisons
Information Control Comparisons
Library as Place Comparisons
Overall Comparisons by User Group
Comments
Free text comments received 2003
London South Bank University
428
University of London 422
UWE, Bristol 419
University of Wolverhampton 413
University of Bath 412
University of Gloucestershire 407
Lancaster University 396
Robert Gordon University 395
University of Liverpool 378
Liverpool John Moores University
353
Royal Holloway University 341
University of Wales, Swansea 340
Uni of Wales College, Newport 339
University of Oxford 337
University College Northampton
332
Glasgow University 330
University of Edinburgh 328
Leeds Metropolitan University 327
DE Montfort University 326
Cranfield University 170
Free text comments received 2004
UMIST + University of Manchester
1090
Trinity College Library Dublin 1032
Glasgow University 920
Brunel University 906
University of Sheffield 786
University of Westminster 671
University of Strathclyde 511
London South Bank University
358
Anglia Polytechnic University 311
Napier University 299
University of Liverpool 258
Queen Margaret University College
251
University of York 239
University of East London 239
University College Worcester 170
Loughborough University Library
120
Free text comments received 2005
University of Exeter 559
University of Edinburgh 206
University of Dundee 709
University of Bath 527
University of Ulster 854
University College Northampton
142
University of Birmingham 975
Roehampton University 359
University of Glasgow 536
University of Surrey 593
Royal Holloway UoL 596
City University 798
Cranfield University 302
University of Luton 188
Dublin Institute of Technology
569
London South Bank University
455
Comments Comparisons
• Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368
• Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161
• Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342
Expect everything
From:• The library facility is uniformly of a high
quality in terms of the book collection maintained, on line electronic resources and "customer care" given to the users.
To:• The library is consistently unimpressive,
except as a consumer of funds and resources.
And everything in between!
3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt
Purpose for participating
• Benchmarking• Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+• Trialling alternative survey methods• More library focused than previous in-
house method• Supporting Charter Mark application
process• Planned institutional survey failed to
happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of doing something to fill the gap.
Primary aim(s) for surveying users
• Understand what their opinions of our service is, to inform strategic planning.
• Making sure we knew what customers concerns really are as we have had much lobbying by one group of students. Also nearly three years since last survey, so needed an update after much change in services.
• User satisfaction : as simple as that. We need to know how they view us and whether we are improving. 3 years of the same survey can have some credibility.
• To gain information for better planning of our service and make adjustments in areas found wanting.
Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process
• Majority found it straightforward• Hard work subtracting / managing
inbuilt US bias• Some issues in obtaining:
– Email addresses– Demographic data
• The publicity to the student body was the most time consuming part
Feedback on results
• Overall results were as expected by the institutions
• “Not too surprising really given anecdotal evidence known already”
• Detailed questions highlighted new information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys
• Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other surveys including a parallel one
How can LibQUAL+ be improved?
• Summary and commentary on results• More flexibility on the content and language
of the questionnaire• More interaction with other UK participating
libraries• Providing results by department, campus,
and for full time and part time students• Simpler questionnaire design• We really need a ConvergedServQual tool! • Needs to allow you to use a word other
than library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre)
Changes made as a result of the survey
• It has strengthened our case in asking for more money to improve the environment.
• We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals which had been axed several weeks before the survey was conducted.
• Implementing PG forums to address issues raised
• Main Library makeover/Group study area • Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating
to resource expenditure at the most senior levels
Tips for participating
• Use a large sample• Promote the survey to help increase the
response rate– Online– Email – Posters– Notices in college newsletters etc.
Tips for participating
• Allow enough time to collect demographics data
• Exploit all areas of help and advice– ARL Web site & discussion list– JISCMail discussion list– Each other– Us!
Conclusions
Conclusions
• LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK academic sector
• Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK
• At least half the participants would use LibQUAL+ again
Lessons learnt
• The majority of participants would not sample the population in future surveys
• The smaller the sample, the lower the response rate
• Collecting demographics is time consuming and subject categories are not always fitting
• Results are detailed and comprehensive, further analysis is complex
Acknowledgements
• Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University Libraries
• Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished Research Scholar, Texas A&M University
• Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas Libraries, Austin
• Martha Kyrillidou & ARL • Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL
Newsletter. Number 31.• Selena Lock, R&D Officer, Cranfield University• All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants
J. Stephen Town
Director of Information ServicesDefence College of Management and
Technology
Deputy University LibrarianCranfield University