Gauging Academic Unit Perceptions of Library Services During a Transition in University Budget Models

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Margaret A Hoogland, Gerald Natal, Robert Wilmott, Clare F. Keating, Daisy Caruso
{"title":"Gauging Academic Unit Perceptions of Library Services During a Transition in University Budget Models","authors":"Margaret A Hoogland, Gerald Natal, Robert Wilmott, Clare F. Keating, Daisy Caruso","doi":"10.18438/eblip30379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective – Beginning in Fiscal Year 2023, a university initiated a multi-year transition to an incentive-based budget model, under which the University Libraries budget would eventually be dependent upon yearly contributions from colleges. Such a change could result in the colleges having a more profound interest in library services and resources. In anticipation of any changes in thoughts and perceptions on existing University Libraries services, researchers crafted a survey for administrators, faculty, and staff focused on academic units related to the health sciences. The collected information would inform library budget decisions with the goal of optimizing support for research and educational interests.\nMethods – An acquisitions and collection management librarian, electronic resources librarian, two health science liaisons, and a staff member reviewed and considered distributing validated surveys to health science faculty, staff, and administrators. Ultimately, researchers concluded that a local survey would allow the University Libraries to address health science community needs and gauge use of library services. In late October 2022, the researchers obtained Institutional Review Board approval and distributed the online survey from mid-November to mid-December 2022.\nResults – This survey collected 112 responses from health science administrators, faculty, and staff. Many faculty and staff members had used University Libraries services for more than 16 years. By contrast, most administrators started using the library within the past six years. Cost-share agreements intrigued participants as mechanisms for maintaining existing subscriptions or paying for new databases and e-journals. Most participants supported improving immediate access to full-text articles instead of relying on interlibrary loans. Participants desired to build upon existing knowledge of Open Access publishing. Results revealed inefficiencies in how the library communicates changes in collections (e.g., journals, books) and services.\nConclusion – A report of the study findings sent to library administration fulfilled the research aim to inform budget decision making. With the possibility of reduced funds under the new internal budgeting model to both academic programs and the library, the study supports consideration of internal cost-sharing agreements. Findings exposed the lack of awareness of the library’s efforts at decision making transparency, which requires exploration of alternative communication methods. Research findings also revealed awareness of Open Educational Resources and Open Access publishing as areas that deserve heightened promotional efforts from librarians. Finally, this local survey and methodology provides a template for potential use at other institutions.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective – Beginning in Fiscal Year 2023, a university initiated a multi-year transition to an incentive-based budget model, under which the University Libraries budget would eventually be dependent upon yearly contributions from colleges. Such a change could result in the colleges having a more profound interest in library services and resources. In anticipation of any changes in thoughts and perceptions on existing University Libraries services, researchers crafted a survey for administrators, faculty, and staff focused on academic units related to the health sciences. The collected information would inform library budget decisions with the goal of optimizing support for research and educational interests. Methods – An acquisitions and collection management librarian, electronic resources librarian, two health science liaisons, and a staff member reviewed and considered distributing validated surveys to health science faculty, staff, and administrators. Ultimately, researchers concluded that a local survey would allow the University Libraries to address health science community needs and gauge use of library services. In late October 2022, the researchers obtained Institutional Review Board approval and distributed the online survey from mid-November to mid-December 2022. Results – This survey collected 112 responses from health science administrators, faculty, and staff. Many faculty and staff members had used University Libraries services for more than 16 years. By contrast, most administrators started using the library within the past six years. Cost-share agreements intrigued participants as mechanisms for maintaining existing subscriptions or paying for new databases and e-journals. Most participants supported improving immediate access to full-text articles instead of relying on interlibrary loans. Participants desired to build upon existing knowledge of Open Access publishing. Results revealed inefficiencies in how the library communicates changes in collections (e.g., journals, books) and services. Conclusion – A report of the study findings sent to library administration fulfilled the research aim to inform budget decision making. With the possibility of reduced funds under the new internal budgeting model to both academic programs and the library, the study supports consideration of internal cost-sharing agreements. Findings exposed the lack of awareness of the library’s efforts at decision making transparency, which requires exploration of alternative communication methods. Research findings also revealed awareness of Open Educational Resources and Open Access publishing as areas that deserve heightened promotional efforts from librarians. Finally, this local survey and methodology provides a template for potential use at other institutions.
在大学预算模式转型期间衡量学术单位对图书馆服务的看法
目标--从 2023 财政年度开始,某大学启动了向激励型预算模式的多年过渡,根据该模式,大学图书馆的预算最终将取决于各学院的年度捐款。这种变化可能会使各学院对图书馆服务和资源产生更浓厚的兴趣。考虑到对大学图书馆现有服务的想法和看法可能会发生变化,研究人员针对与健康科学相关的学术单位的管理人员、教职员工进行了一项调查。收集到的信息将为图书馆预算决策提供参考,目标是优化对研究和教育利益的支持。方法 - 一名采购和馆藏管理图书管理员、电子资源图书管理员、两名健康科学联络员和一名工作人员审查并考虑向健康科学教职员工和管理人员分发有效的调查问卷。最终,研究人员得出结论,本地调查将使大学图书馆能够满足健康科学界的需求,并评估图书馆服务的使用情况。2022 年 10 月下旬,研究人员获得了机构审查委员会的批准,并于 2022 年 11 月中旬至 12 月中旬发布了在线调查。许多教职员工使用大学图书馆的服务已超过 16 年。相比之下,大多数管理人员是在过去六年内开始使用图书馆的。成本分摊协议作为维持现有订阅或支付新数据库和电子期刊费用的机制,引起了与会者的兴趣。大多数与会者支持改善全文文章的即时访问,而不是依赖馆际互借。与会者希望在现有开放存取出版知识的基础上再接再厉。研究结果表明,图书馆在传达馆藏(如期刊、书籍)和服务变化方面效率低下。在新的内部预算编制模式下,学术项目和图书馆的资金都有可能减少,因此该研究支持考虑内部成本分担协议。研究结果表明,人们对图书馆在决策透明度方面所做的努力缺乏了解,这就需要探索其他交流方式。研究结果还显示,对开放教育资源和开放存取出版的认识是值得图书馆员加大宣传力度的领域。最后,这项本地调查和方法提供了一个可供其他机构使用的模板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信