Environmental Scan Reflections
__________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
The Value of Academic Libraries
There is widespread acceptance among the general public, as well as among professionals in the ILS field, that a shift in perception of the value of libraries and the services they provide has taken place. Nowhere is this perception shift more evident than in college students. Two scholarly surveys, the Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Environmental Scan 2007 (Scan) and the Online Computer Library Center’s (OCLC) College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources, 2005 (Perceptions) support each others’ findings on this, but it remains unclear to what extent efforts have been made to address these issues.
Assumptions Impacting Academic Librarianship
The ACRL Scan was conducted to “identify the major assumptions shaping the practice of academic librarianship, as well as to identify emergent issues of concern to the profession”(3). Three of the top ten assumptions they identified as impacting the future of academic libraries and librarians identified 1) the increased demand for digital resources, 2) student and faculty demand for increased access to a greater number of “technology-related services and technology-rich user environments”, and finally, 3) the confluence of technology and consumerism resulting in a demand for “high-quality facilities, resources, and services attuned to their needs and concerns”(4). This paper seeks to address how students perceive library services as identified in the OCLU survey and to look at how well libraries are responding to the issues raised.
Confluence of Technology and Consumerism
The 2007 Scan cites a 1997 study by Arthur Levine that found students’ lives don’t revolve around college and that they view college much as a consumer would. They are willing to shop around for the facilities that meet their needs and colleges are aware of this and are responding, although a bit reluctantly. Results from the Scan show a majority “agreed with this assumption, although some objected to using the term customer to identify a student … not [letting] the students’ immediate desires interfere with the library’s responsibility to … ‘integrate them into the world of scholarship’” (18).
How is this to happen then when librarian related services seem to take a back seat to the actual resources themselves? The Perceptions survey documented students’ preference for self-service and confidence in their abilities to find information through search engines, bypassing library Web sites and their electronic databases, and the personal help offered by reference librarians (6). If libraries are to maintain their traditional structure and not evolve into an information commons, they need to address these perceptions about the value of the services they provide aside from students’ perception of the library as a place.
Books | The Library Brand
College students seem to inherently express what S.R. Ranganathan penned over 50 years ago in The Five Laws of Library Science: 1) Books are for use. 2) Every reader his book. 3) Every book his reader. 4) Save the time of the reader. 5) The library is a growing organism (2004). It seems oddly out of place, then, in this digital age, that students surveyed view the business of the library much as Ranganathan did - as having to do with books. In Perceptions, authored by DeRosa et al., the primary goal of the survey was to clarify what came to mind when students were asked to define the library’s identity. “When asked about their first spontaneous impression of libraries, … 70% of college students” replied “books”. In this age of technological advances, with college students relying increasingly on digital information, the survey tried in a variety of way to determine if by “books” they meant that “books, in essence, stand for those intangible qualities of information familiarity, information trust and information quality. The data did not reveal it” (6-5). College students surveyed could not be swayed in their primary association of libraries as repositories for books. Clearly libraries need a new marketing strategy if they are to expand that brand to be seen as repositories for information in its broadest sense.
How Students Use Libraries
While students stubbornly held onto “books” as the library brand, results in the Perceptions survey show they readily admit their library use decreased 39% as a result of internet use (6-1). Yet a surprising 90% of students have library cards, use the library for studying, homework and to access computers/ Internet, and expect this to increase over time. Students show “high levels of awareness of library electronic resources” (6-3) but their overall satisfaction is low – only 2% begin their searches on library Web sites (6-2) and only 10% were satisfied with the information they found when a search engine directed them back to their library collections (6-3).
How are libraries responding to students’ expressed dissatisfaction with electronic library collections? Apparently, not too well. Statistics show that libraries are spending an increasingly high percentage of available resources on electronic resources. “Experimental data collected by ARL libraries over the last decade indicate that the portion of the library materials budget that is spent on electronic resources is indeed growing rapidly, from an estimated 3.6% in 1992-93 to 10.56% in 1998-99”. When a significant percentage of budgets are spent on reference materials that are perceived as not helpful, libraries are falling short in meeting the raison d’etre of reference, mainly what Janes has identified as "provision of direct, professional assistance to people who are seeking information, at the time and point of need” (30).
Information Seeking Behaviors
What is a librarian and, ultimately, a library to do about this? The goal of libraries is to meet the information needs of their patrons. The Perceptions survey showed that 89% of college students rely on search engines and while they trust the information they find with them equally with the information they find in libraries, only 10% were satisfied if they accessed information on the library Web site from that search engine (6-2). The perception of students is that “search engines deliver better quality and quantity of information than librarian-assisted searching-and at greater speed”(p.6-4). Ragananthan’s Fourth Law “Save the time of the reader” seems prescient fifty years on (2004). Although speed is not at the top of the list, it is an important factor in information seeking behavior. This perception is a major stumbling block when it comes to colleges and universities trying to adapt to the changing climate of information seeking behavior among college students.
Remaining Relevant to Students
Colleges will need to address how they can remain relevant in the academic life of their students when “the data in this report show that libraries lack relevance in the lives of younger respondents, and that their resources and services are not clearly differentiated form other information sources” (DeRosa et al. 6-4). Although many students are aware of the electronic resources available through their library, they trust their own abilities to find what they need and state they use “common sense/personal knowledge” (6-4) to decide if the information can be trusted.
“If you can’s beat ‘em, join ‘em” is the approach recommended by Joseph C. Harmon, reference team leader of the university libraries at Indiana University – Purdue University. Instead of viewing students’ use of internet search engines with an all or nothing approach, he recommends not only helping students evaluate information they find through Google or Yahoo! searches, but also recommends encouraging them to use the open web. He bases this on his findings that many authoritative sources such as government and state agencies are increasing offering access to documents exclusively on the open web (2-3).
Search engines such as Google Scholar access peer-reviewed papers and their searches are frequently linked to the colleges’ collection. Harmon believes use of the open web will play a significant role in the future lives of students. As a result, it is in everyone’s best interest to instruct students in critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate the resources they access through their Internet searches (2-3). In addition to embracing students’ use of search engines, Notess believes “making their access seamless” when they do use the library’s online resources should be a goal most academic libraries should be addressing if they are to compete with Google (45). Based on the Perceptions survey and the advice students would like to give college libraries this seamless access does not appear to be happening.
Student Recommendations
Using the ‘student as consumer’ model, here are recommendations made when asked:
“If you could provide one piece of advice to your library, what would it be?”
- “Make the library more inviting and update your books”
- “Continue to support education and literacy…don’t be afraid to try new things and new methods”
- A smile goes a long way. The environment, including the friendliness of the staff, makes a difference for me
- A search engine of their own
- I think this survey is right on track. The libraries should look at community spaces like Starbucks and Borders, and should also look at the value of online material like Google, and they should try to be more relevant in the current age
- Our library staff is very busy and help is difficult to get while there. I always have felt that I am an imposition if I ask a question. This needs to change to a more friendly environment to encourage more visits. Have friendly staff who explain how the library works/is laid out to anyone who seems unfamiliar with libraries.
- Advertise (DeRosa et al 4-1 – 1-10
Author Recommendations
This is where Ragananthan’s Fifth Law – The library is a growing organism comes into play. Clearly, college libraries stand at the confluence of traditional resources/services and technological advances. A general observation of college students at any given time will find the majority of them making use of technology. Students text message, call, twitter, download e-books or send pictures, and access the internet using any number of “killer apps” available for their mobile phones. This is the generation born to multi-task, frequently having numerous windows open while researching, writing papers, watching YouTube, doing homework, or just surfing the net as a downtime activity. Listed below are this authors recommendations that college libraries would be wise to consider in an effort to remain relevant in the lives of today’s (and future) college students.
- Clearly differentiate to students how libraries’ resources and services are different from other information sources.
- Institute training in using the internet for research
- During orientation, librarians need to be actively involved in planned activities, possibly scavenger hunts in the library using resources or Jeopardy type games pitting electronic resource teams against internet based teams – remember they’re still kids and like to have fun
- Offer programs that appeal to this age group at the beginning of the term to encourage them to come and use the resources
- Host poetry slams and readings that reach out to students, possibly co-sponsor these with the student activities coordinator
- Use campus wide email or listservs to inform students of new materials and resources available to them
- Engage students by using library 2.0 tools, including polls, blogs and wikis on the Web site
- Revisit the university or colleges information literacy programs and make recommendations when weaknesses are identified.
- Streamline the website – frequently too much information is listed - possibly create a fast facts type link for quick search options – two to three at the most
- Be friendly and non-judgmental in your approach to their information needs
The most critical element is to not lose sight of the importance of doing what libraries do best – provide information in a friendly user-centered approach at the time of need where it is needed and don’t be so full of ourselves that we neglect to embrace the changes required to regain a place of relevancy in the lives of today’s college students.
___________________________________________________________________
Works Cited
"College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources," OCLC, 2006.
<http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/studentperceptions_conclusion.pdf>
DeRosa, M.B.A, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Diane Cellentani, M.B.A., Janet Hawk, M.B.A., Lillie Jenkins, Ph.D., M.S.I.S., and Alane Wilson, M.L.I.S. "Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources(2005) Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (2005)." OCLC The world's
libraries. Connected. 2005. OCLC. 11 Feb. 2009 <http://www.oclc.org/default.htm>.
Harmon, Joseph C. "Let Them Use the Internet: Why College Instructors Should Encourage Student Internet Use." College Teaching 55.1 (01 Jan. 2007): 2-4. ERIC. EBSCO. SCSU, New Haven, CT. 15 Feb. 2009
<http://0-search.ebscohost.com.csulib.ctstateu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ773378&site=
ehost-live>.
Kyrillidou, Martha. “Research Library Spending on Electronic Scholarly Information is on the Rise.”1998-99. The Association of Research Libraries. 2 Feb. 2009
<http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:S07ORRlql8MJ:www.arl.org/bm~doc/spend.pdf+library+
spending+on+electronic+resources&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Notess, Greg R. "Re-Evaluating Web Evaluation." College Teaching 55.1 (Jan/Feb 2006): 45-47. ERIC. EBSCO. Stonehill College, Easton, MA. 153Feb. 2009 <http://0-
search.ebscohost.com.library.stonehill.edu/ehost/refresults?vid=13&hid=104&sid=998d665>.
Ranganathan, Shiyala R. "Contributions." Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan. 24 Mar. 2004. University of British Columbia. CA. 6 Feb. 2009 <http://www.slais.ubc.ca/>.