David Wells
Curtin University Library
David Wells is Manager, Collections, at Curtin University Library, with responsibility for acquisitions, cataloguing and strategic management of the Library's collections, and for the Library Catalogue. He has published a number of articles about discovery system design and patterns of use in the electronic library.
Purpose:
Libraries are always concerned to obtain data from clients about the effectiveness of their collections, discovery systems and information literacy programs in order to inform decisions and planning of services. In the past, Curtin University Library has used the methodology developed in the late 1990s by the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) to survey clients about their ability to locate the specific physical items that they are looking for. As libraries have moved in recent years increasingly towards the provision of information resources in electronic format and increasingly have clients who are not physically present in the library, the original CAUL methodology is no longer adequate. The present project, which builds on a pilot undertaken in 2013, transfers the concept of the materials availability survey to the electronic environment. Participants were asked to comment on whether they found the electronic items they were looking for and, if they did not, what they consider to be the reasons for this failure. The survey results were then analysed by library staff to identify patterns to help us understand use of information resources and the library catalogue by clients, identify possible improvements to catalogue data, catalogue design, library collection development and information literacy design, and test and refine the survey methodology to maximise its value as part of the library's ongoing quality program.
Design, methodology or approach:
Clients were randomly invited to participate in the survey through a web browser window that appeared when a catalogue search was initiated from the library's home page. Participants were asked to record a specific electronic item they are looking for, whether they found it, and reasons for not finding it, if applicable. Survey data was collected using Qualtrics software and responses forwarded immediately to library staff, who endeavoured to reproduce "failed" searches, and confirm whether the clients' analysis was correct. Survey results were coded and tabulated for further analysis.
Findings:
The survey was run during the week of 27 March 2017. Results will be available for discussion by the date of the conference.
Research or practical limitations or implications:
The expectation is that the electronic materials availability survey methodology developed through this project can be used routinely as a quality assurance mechanism to identify areas for improvement, and to provide a performance scorecard measure. Running the full-scale survey in 2017 will allow us to identify any technical or methodological issues that will need to be resolved before the survey can be adopted as a regular instrument. Already in preparing for the 2017 survey we have needed to make modifications in order to simplify the invitation and survey delivery process to ensure that it operates effectively with the full range of web browsers and that from the participant point of view completing the survey is not too far removed from the process of searching for the library item required. We also decided to limit the survey to electronic items rather than also including print, partly to make the survey experience simpler for clients, and partly to reflect the declining importance of print for the library's collection.
Conclusions:
Analysis of the survey outcomes is currently under way. We expect that the survey will provide valuable data for understanding client behaviour and informing improvements to library services.
Originality and value:
If successful, it should be possible to apply the methodology of the Curtin electronic materials availability survey to other libraries as well, allowing not only for internal quality control, but also for benchmarking across multiple institutions.
Collections , Digital , Value , Performance Indicators , Innovative Methods , Usage , Methods
