The University of Memphis Libraries Faculty Survey

Spring 2001

Executive SummaryPrepared by Perveen Rustomfram

November 2002

Note: Percentages are based upon the 194 faculty responses received, unless otherwise indicated.

Academic Rank (n=194)

Research Associate/

Fellow/Faculty0.5%

No Response2.1%

Instructor7.2%

Assistant Professor

27.8%

Associate Professor

26.3%

Professor36.1%

Years as a Faculty Member (n=194)

No Response1.00%

More than ten years

49.00%

Five years through ten

years15.50%

One year through five

years24.70%

Less than a year

9.80%

Granted Tenure (n=194)

Yes65.50%

No22.70%

Not in a Tenure Track Position

10.80%

No Response1.00%

Gender (n=194)

Male62%

Female34%

No Response4%

Assignments in the Last 12 Months (n=194)

Other10.30%

Primarily Involved in Research26.30%

Non-teaching Assignment

21.60%

Teaching Graduate Classes69.10%

Teaching Undergraduate Classes(Lower

Level)42.80%

Teaching Undergraduate Classes(Upper

Level)61.30%

College Percent

Arts and Sciences 44.80%

Education 12.40%

Business and Economics 9.80%

Communication and Fine Arts 8.20%Engineering 7.20%

University Libraries 5.70%

No Response 5.20%

Nursing 1.50%Audiology and Speech Language Pathology 1.00%

Transitional Academic Studies 1.00%

Center for Community Health 1.00%Center for Earthquake Research and Information 1.00%Center for Rehabilitation and Research 0.50%

Center for Study of Higher Education 0.50%

College Affiliation (n=194)

1

Use

Co

mp

ute

r a

tC

am

pu

s O

ffice

Use

Co

mp

ute

r a

t Ho

me

Use

E-M

ail

Use

WW

W/In

tern

et

Ha

ve O

ffici

al B

ran

chL

ibra

ry L

oca

ted

in D

ep

t

Ha

veR

ea

din

g/R

ese

arc

hA

rea

in D

ep

t

97.9%89.2%

99.0% 96.4%

10.8%22.7%

0%

18%

36%

54%

72%

90%

108%

Per

cen

tInformation Technology Use and Departmental

Libraries (n=194)

• Male

• Tenured

• Professor

• Arts & Sciences

• @ UofM 10+ years

• Computer literate

• Grad/upper level Ugrad courses

Use of U of M Libraries in Past 12 Months (n=194)

Yes 91%

No Response4%

No5%

Libraries used or visited duringFeb. 2000 – March 2001

McWherter 85.6% Mathematics 2.6% Chemistry 2.1% Earth Sciences 2.1% Music 2.1% Audiology and Speech Language

Pathology 1.5% No Response 4.1%

Overwhelmingly the McWherter Library was the most used Visited in person 92.8% Used via remote access 67.5% Called via phone 44.8% Used via Graduate Assistants

40.7%

Top seven reasons for using the Libraries

Research 87.6% Browse journal collection 65.5% Prepare for coursework 57.2% Pick up material ILL, holds/recalls

57.2% Browse book collection 47.9% Consult library staff in person 43.3% Consult library staff by phone 28.4%

Bottom five reasons for using Libraries

Consult library staff by email 20.1%

Use instruction classrooms 14.9% Use meeting rooms 14.4% Bring in class for library instruction

12.9% Read for pleasure 10.8%

Importance of resources for faculty research Print Journals 82.5% Electronic Indexes and Abstracts 67.5% tomCAT (Online Catalog) 64.4% Circulating Books 57.7% Full-text Databases 54.1% Reference Books 51.0% Electronic Journals 45.9% Print Indexes/Abstracts 39.7% U of M Libraries Web Pages 32.0% Microforms 25.3% Government Publications 23.2% Newspapers 11.9%

Satisfaction with resources for faculty research ranked in descending order(n=Number of respondents stating an

opinion) Government Publications 88.4% 95 U of M Libraries Web Pages 87.6% 145 Print Indexes/Abstracts 79.7% 138 Special Collections(Rare Books/Archives) 79.0% 62 Electronic Indexes and Abstracts 77.4% 155 Newspapers 76.3% 97 tomCAT (Online Catalog) 73.2% 168 Maps 72.0% 50 Microforms 70.8% 120 Sheet Music 70.4% 27 Electronic Journals 64.8% 128 Music Recordings(Records/CDs/Audio) 64.3% 28 Full-text Databases 63.4% 142 Reference Books 61.7% 167 Audiovisuals(Film/Audio/Video) 55.1% 78 Circulating Books 43.4% 175 Print Journals 42.3% 175

Importance of resources for student research (n=194) Print Journals 69.1% Circulating Books 60.3% Electronic Indexes and Abstracts 58.8% Reference Books 58.2% tomCAT (Online Catalog) 56.2% Full-text Database 46.9% Electronic Journals 44.3% Print Indexes/Abstracts 38.1% U of M Libraries Web Pages 32.5% Government Publications 23.2% Microforms 20.1% Newspapers 11.9%

As a point of comparison, responses to the 1999 Undergraduate students’ survey indicated that the top three resources used were books, periodicals, and electronic databases.

Satisfaction with resources for student

research (n=Number of respondents stating an opinion)

U of M Libraries Web Pages 87.7% 114 Government Publications 86.4% 81 tomCAT (Online Catalog) 80.2% 131 Electronic Indexes and Abstracts 74.8%

127 Newspapers 74.4% 82 Print Indexes/Abstracts 74.2% 120 Special Collections(Rare Books/Archives) 72.7%

44 Microforms 72.2% 97 Maps 66.7% 36 Full-text Databases 63.8% 116 Electronic Journals 63.8% 116 Sheet Music 61.9% 21 Music Recordings(Records/CDs/Audio) 59.2% 27 Reference Books 56.0% 152 Audiovisuals(Film/Audio/Video) 48.4% 62 Print Journals 40.8% 147 Circulating Books 39.1% 156

Satisfaction with Services (n= Number of respondents stating an opinion)

Check out/Renewal/Billing 81.0% 142 Adaptive Technology Lab 80.6% 31 Interlibrary Loan 72.8% 158 Assigned Study Carrels 72.7% 44 Reserve Room 71.2% 111 Networked Printing (Main) 64.4% 59 Holds/Recalls 61.6% 112 McWherter Copy Center 57.7% 104

(Dept Photocopying) Micro/readers/printers/VCRs 54.8% 93 Self-service Photocopying 51.5% 130

Satisfaction with Departments

(n=Number of respondents stating an opinion)

Reference Department 93.5% 155 Circulation Department 87.0% 154 Periodicals Department 90.0% 142 Government Publications 95.7% 94 Microforms/AV 76.9% 104 Special Collections 91.7% 60 Interlibrary Loan Department 78.2% 147 Reserve Room 71.4% 98 Copy Center 67.4% 95

Satisfaction with Branches (n= Number of respondents stating an opinion)

Audiology and Speech 100.0% 8 Pathology Library Chemistry Library 87.5% 16 Earth Sciences Library 92.9% 14 Mathematics Library 66.7% 18 Music Library 100.0% 14

Library Instruction

Aware of library instruction classes for students 64.9% Unaware of library instruction classes for students 28.9% Make use of library instruction classes

for students 22.2% Do not make use of library instruction

classes for students 69.6%

Future Needs: Prioritized by Faculty

(n=194)

Print Journals 80.9% Print Books 62.4% Online Full-Text Journal articles 60.8% Online indexes and databases 56.7% Document Delivery Service 48.5% Reshelve material quickly & accurately

42.3% Photocopiers 37.1%

Future Needs (contd.)

Libraries computer workstations 31.4% Electronic full-text reserves 27.8% Vend-a-card machines 24.7% Change Machines 24.2% Improve online help screens 23.2% Increase Libraries hours on

weekends 21.6% Microform printers 21.6% More staff to provide assistance 20.1% Microform readers 17.0%

Characterization of Comments More, more, more journals More, more, more books More electronic indexes and databases More full-text electronic journals Increase acquisitions budget ILL-expand number of requests accepted weekly

More videotapes/audiotapes Staff: assistance praised/needs

improvement/need more Doing great job despite being under-funded and

understaffed

Areas Recommended for Attention

To be a research university library: Increase resources/collections (books,

journals, etc.) Expand/improve document delivery

and interlibrary loan services Expand/improve remote access to

resources/services Improve student/staff training Increase number of library personnel

Actions taken by Libraries since survey was completed Remote Access

Proxy server was installed; provides greatly improved off-campus access to Libraries’ electronic information

Limitation on ILL requests removed Access Services Librarian position filled

Redesigning ILL website New electronic ILL form available early 2003

Reviewing ILLiad software package for possible purchase

Will provide online access to articles requested via ILL and enhance online requesting via ILL

Actions taken (contd.) Systems

Upgraded Libraries’ network for increased speed Upgraded Libraries’ tomCat (online catalog)

software Installed 70 new public access terminals in

McWherter and Branch Libraries McWherter Library became a “wireless” building Secured network access to safeguard

confidentiality and system security Will fill Web Services Librarian position in early

2003 Anticipate improvement/enhancement of Libraries

WebServices

Actions taken (contd.) Resources/Collections

Collection Development Librarian position filled Redefining collection development procedures

through Libraries’ Liaison Program Provide access to 25,000+ e-books via Webpage Provide access to 150+ electronic

databases/indexes Provide access to over 19,000 full-text electronic

journals and / or abstracts of articles Upgraded microform printing system Loaded UofM Law School Library holdings into

tomCat in 2002 Will load post-1989 Government Publications

holdings into tomCat in 2003