Helena F. Rodrigues
Roger Williams University Library
Bristol, RI 02809-2921, USA
Abstract: Library catalogs have long been and continue to be the main access tool for acquiring materials in libraries. The card catalog, used by libraries in various forms since the last century is finally reaching its demise as new generations of online catalogs (OPACS) replace them. Users now press keyboards and interact with video display terminals rather than opening drawers of a cabinet and fingering through 3 x 5 inch cards.
The decision to implement new technology in the library, including the online catalog, usually is made by top and middle managers. In some situations, far too little consideration is given to the end users, the group who will be consuming the product of this new techno-logy. The general consensus is to elevate the library into the world of high technology while the end users are expected to accept and adapt to the change. While it is true that computer-literate patrons are elated with this paperless method of retrieving books; and computer novices admit that the systems are user-friendly, the fact remains that the use of the online catalog within certain library environments can be quite frustrating.
This is especially true in libraries with online union databases. Users are exposed from hundreds of thousands to millions of titles. They are confronted by a deluge of information which can be both overwhelming and exciting at the same time. Finally the reality of the sit-uation sets in, i.e., the books they need (or think they need) are not owned by their library.
This paper presents comparative results on a study on the end user satisfaction in using these online catalogs at three institutions.
For many years the worth of a library was measured by the size of its collection. The library owned all materials that were stored within its walls. Applying Webster's definition of "ownership" to this scenario, the library not only "possessed" the materials but "controlled" them as well. In controlling the collections, libraries had the power of determining and restricting the information available to their users.
Modern technology is rapidly changing the traditional, outdated conception of libraries as mere warehouses of books. De Gennaro stresses that, "Technology is making the resources within a library available beyond its walls, and the resources beyond its walls available within the library." In other words, libraries have become information centers providing practically unlimited access of resources to users (De Gennaro, 1987).
According to the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, a library has an inherent obligation to develop information services which support the needs of users. To assist libraries in fulfilling this obligation are the Standards and Guidelines Committee, Reference and Adult Services Division, American Library Association, prepared guidelines for providers of information services. The following guidelines in the areas of services, resources, and access are:
_______________________________________________________________________
The library should participate in consortia and networks to obtain access to information sources and services it cannot provide on its own.
2.0 Resources
2.1 The library should collect or provide access to information resources germane to its mission and reflecting the interests of the full spectrum of the population it serves. These information resources should satisfy, through content, currency, format, organization, and quantity a diversity of user needs.
2.3 As necessary, information services personnel should reach beyond reference collec-tions to tap the resources of the library as a whole. To provide the information that users need, they should also reach beyond in-house collections and in-house expertise by drawing on the resources of the organizations that collect and provide information, by consulting individual experts, and tapping external information sources regardless of their medium.
3.0 Access
3.4 The library should support state-of-the-art communications methods for access to information resources for users, whether within or outside its building(s).
3.6 The library should provide appropriate equipment in adequate quantities and in good working order for the convenient, efficient consultation of local and remote information resources by staff and the public. This includes communications hardware and software to receive and answer queries for information from users.
_______________________________________________________________________
In compliance with these guidelines, five institutions of higher education in Rhode Island formed the Higher Education Library Network (HELIN) to improve local services through consortial efforts. These institutions include: the University of Rhode Island (URI), Rhode Island College (RIC), the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI), Providence College (PC), and Roger Williams University (RWU). The HELIN Consortium was initiated in 1984 by the three state institutions for the purpose of sharing an automated circulation system. Roger Williams University joined in 1990, and Providence College in 1992.
In January 1991, Roger Williams University was the first member to offer the HELIN OPAC to its users. The concept of being a library without walls was made possible by the HELIN union database with over one million entries. Approximately 100,000 are held by RWU. In the words of Townley, "Alone, a college library cannot afford enhanced collections in more than a few subject areas. Yet by banding together, college library collections can form a virtual research library to the benefit of faculty and students at all participating institutions"(Townley, 1992).
Technological advancements provide many exciting opportunities to library users, these also create a fair amount of challenges. In an effort to assist users in meeting the challenge of having immediate access to only one-tenth of the records in the HELIN database, a user-satisfaction study was planned.
3. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are to evaluate user satisfaction within three different library catalog environments:
• an online catalog with a union database (Roger Williams University);
• an online catalog with a single database (Salve Regina University); and
• a traditional card catalog (Providence College).
4. STUDY METHODOLOGY
During the month of September 1992, a user-satisfaction survey was conducted at the libraries of Roger Williams University, Salve Regina University, and Providence College. RWU and SRU both use INNOPAC Public Catalogs.
In the 10-question multiple choice survey instrument, randomly chosen users were asked to indicate their experience, frequency, search options, search success, and evaluation regarding their library catalogs.
5. STUDY RESULTS
A Total of 75 individual questionnaires were completed, 25 for each library. Of this figure 17% were freshmen, 9% - sophomores, 19% - juniors, 26% - seniors, and 29% - other (Table 1). This last category comprised faculty members, exchange students, graduate students, administrators, and alumni.
As shown in Table 2, the majority (35%) of those questioned use the catalog once a week. 18% use it once a semester, 27% once a month, 18% more than once a week and 3% never use it. The fact that the majority of the users were undergraduates could account for the low frequency of usage
Note: Percentage totals are rounded; do not equal
100%.
In identifying their search options, Table 3 lists
that an overwhelming 67% of all users searched by subject, 39% by title,
and 35% by author. Only 8% at RWU searched by words in the title, while
12% used this option at SRU. Keyword searching was available only at SRU
with 38% of the users indicating this as one of their search options.�
Note: Multiple responses permitted; do not total
100%.
In terms of overall user success, participants at PC who used the card catalog were most successful with their searches (92%). SRU users followed closely with a 75% figure for success. Only 68% of the users at RWU indicated that their searches were successful, while 32% were unsuccessful (Table 4).
In response to the question of how users evaluated
their catalogs, the majority of participants in our sample revealed that
their catalogs were very easy (23%) or easy (69%). A small number of users
at PC and RWU (16% and 8% respectfully) found their catalogs difficult
to use (Table 5).
Note: Percentage figures are rounded; do not equal
100%.
6. USER COMMENTS
This survey also yielded significant user comments which reflect frustration in obtaining the library material once the search was completed. At Roger Williams University, with its union database, participants expressed their discontent with such statements as:
• "Book wasn't in this library."
• "Not located in this library."
• "Library does not have it."
• "Every book I need is in some other library."
• "Disappointed in the amount of information this library offers."
• "Rather have a card catalog because I can search for what is here."
• "Books needed not on the shelves."
• "Books are needed immediately."
Only 3 Providence College users of the card catalog complained of "Lack of material," "Books not accessible," and "Library is set up strange." Of the user group at Salve Regina University, two responded: "Information not in catalog," and "Information not in library."
7. BROADER IMPLICATIONS
As anticipated, the results of this evaluation emphasized high satisfaction levels attained by users interacting with their library catalogs (card or online), and find them easy to use. However, the most significant aspect of the study is the fact that the data revealed a discord between the information provided to the user and physical access to this information.
The participants' answers revealed that, by far, subject searches are performed most often. This leads one to assume that title and authors are not as important as material on the specific topic of the user who generally would like the information immediately or as soon as possible.
Philosophically, the concept of libraries without walls is a noble aspiration. On the other hand, some users, especially undergraduates with time management problems, find it difficult to accept that the material needed is not immediately available. According to one observer, "Access delayed may be access denied." (Cohen, 1989)
8. CONCLUSION
As library catalogs become increasingly technologically advanced, users have unlimited access to local, national and international collections. Amidst this cosmos (or chaos) of accessibility, the question of how to fulfill the immediate needs of the user still remains. Some positive steps are recommended:
• Emphasize selectivity when searching for library material. Users should be instructed that the quality of information is more important than the amount of material used in research.
• Remind users of the "Limit" option offered by INNOPAC. After search terms are entered and a large number of entries are revealed, limiting the search by "where" will display only those items that have the location symbol of RWU.
• Encourage browsing in local library stacks to locate materials with similar call numbers which could be just as useful or better for the user. The online bibliographic record can appear quite differently from the item in hand to a non-professional.
• Encourage visits to other HELIN member-libraries to obtain material personally in order to save time.
• Finally, a HELIN delivery system should be considered to offer fast and dependable inter-consortial lending. If users can be guaranteed a 24- or 48-hour turnaround time, the creation of a library truly without walls will reach fruition and user needs will be met effectively.
Further studies are needed to investigate if users with strong critical thinking skills are capable of being more selective with the results of their searches; and, in this way, distinguish between search success and user satisfaction.
REFERENCES
De Gennaro, Richard. Librarians, Technologies, and the Information Marketplace. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1987.
Townley, Charles T. "College Libraries and Resource Sharing: Testing a Compact Disc Union Catalog," College & Research Libraries 53 (5): 405-413 (September 1992).
Cohen, David. "Are We Ready for Access?" Serials Review 15 (3): 83-85 (Fall 1989).