Reference ala june2014

SAGE Online Products Team Los Angeles | London | New Delhi
Singapore | Washington DC
Elisabeth Leonard, MSLS, MBA
http://ow.ly/yeXik

Background
● Invitations to complete the survey were sent to various
listservs, including publib, colldev, acqnet, and SLA chapter
lists globally.
● Email invitations were sent to 800 reference, collection
development, and acquisition librarians.
● There were 32 questions.
● Completed surveys were eligible to win an iPad mini.
● Followed up with interviews and focus groups.

Demographics: geographic
● 471 responses (600+ came to the first page)
• 90% came from North America,
• 6% from Asia Pacific,
• 2% from Europe,
• 1% from South America,
• and 0.5% from Africa.

Demographics: library type
● 58% were from academic libraries
● 13% from corporate libraries
● 12% from medical libraries
● 10% from government or military libraries
● 6% from public libraries
● 1% from school libraries

PERCEPTIONS OF
REFERENCE

People still use and ask for
● Subject handbooks
● Databases,
● Encyclopedias
● Dictionaries
● Updated editions
As well as journals, articles and textbooks

“Sometimes the requests come
from patrons, but more often
from colleagues (after dealing
with patrons and noticing a
need) and professors.”

% of patrons librarians believe are
aware of reference resources

Librarian satisfaction with perceived
patron awareness

Top ways librarians think patrons
discover reference resources
● Following the direction of a librarian
● Following the direction of an instructor
● Searching online (eg. Google)

Are librarians satisfied with the use
reference resources get?

Why not?
● It can always be better (I feel usage is good, but could be better/ I
always want people to read more, research more. I will never be fully
satisfied!)
● Free alternative resources (It is an uphill battle to get them to use the
library instead of Google or other search engine as their starting place.)
● Faculty not on board (Many faculty discourage students from using
reference materials when they are a great place to start the process.)
● Not enough value for the money (Aren't used heavily enough, based
on their research value.)
● Not enough promotion (We need to promote our reference resources.
These resources are basically underused and we are increasingly
selective about acquiring them in print; Usage does drive renewals)
● The value is in the answer (IMO, it doesn't matter if a Ref is used
exactly once, IF with that use it provides precisely what the patron needs.)
● C’est la vie (People are usually either library users, or they are not.
Some people just don't give priority to such things, and they probably won't
set the world on fire.)

Issues with discovery
● “The Discovery service doesn't make it
possible to filter for this content. Our catalog
does a great job, but the students don't start
there. Our major reference vendor's content
isn't in the Discovery service (yet). Reference
Universe, the index to reference content, does
not work well enough in the Discovery Layer
or even on its own to get students to that
content. A problem that needs to be fixed.”

Reference budgets: past and future

Spending comes from subject funds
“We have not had a reference budget for
some time now. Reference resources that
are acquired now come out of subject area
budgets along with any resources needed
for that area.”

Funds move to e-resources line
● “Although the amount of the reference
budget is probably about the same, the
type of materials purchases are quite
different. We used to spend considerable
money on paper monographs, standing
orders, and reference serials. We spend
very little on any of those, but much of the
money we spent has now been transferred
into the budget for online resources.”

Consolidation of budget lines
“We continue to purchase reference
materials but we don't have a separate
"reference" budget line. We engaged in
some reorganization a few years ago, and
that included folding many separate small
budget lines into fewer, larger, ones.”

A preference for e-reference
“We have a shared fund for purchases of
online resources - many of which are A&I
databases and thus 'reference'. But they are
not charged to our 'reference' fund. Our
'reference' fund is only for print material. So
our online reference buying is increasing
each year. Our print reference buying is
holding steady or decreasing.”

“E” (and a little print)
Academic Public Special
Print only 0.5% 0% 3%
Print preferred 4% 5% 6%
Online only 7% 0% 11%
Online preferred 68% 35% 50%
No preference 22% 60% 31%
No longer purchase reference 1% 0% 5%

Preferences

Growth from new programs
“Our budget was cut last year, but we will be
gaining 3 new residency programs.
Therefore, in certain areas, I think our
budget will increase to meet GME
requirements.”

Importance of one time funds
“We've seen fluctuations in our reference
purchasing because, though we have
definitely seen cuts in the amount of monies
we spend, we've also been the beneficiaries
of one-time money which has then been used
to purchase all sorts of materials, including
reference materials. This has had the overall
effect of off-setting cuts in the budget.”

QUESTIONS? FEEDBACK?
State of Reference Collections white paper:
http://ow.ly/yeXik
elisabeth.leonard@sagepub.com

Reference budgets: last 5 years
Increased 10% 15% 12%
Stayed the
same
34% 15% 29%
Decreased 49% 65% 49%
Don’t know 7% 5% 9%

Reference budgets: next 5 years
Increase 10% 6% 18%
Stay the same 34% 44% 32%
Decrease 54% 50% 44%
Don’t spend
now
1% 0% 5%
Eliminated 0.6% 0% 0.9%

Reference ala june2014

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Reference ala june2014

Ähnlich wie Reference ala june2014 (20)

Mehr von Elisabeth Leonard

Mehr von Elisabeth Leonard (11)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Reference ala june2014

Hinweis der Redaktion