Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Repositories and RAE Submission Getting More Out Of Institutional Repositories Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager University of Nottingham.
Advertisements

Open Access - Where are we so far? Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham.
Publisher Policies and RoMEO Bill Hubbard Head of Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham.
UK Council of Research Repositories UKCoRR Launch - 21 st May 2007 University of Nottingham.
Putting Repositories in Their Place Bill Hubbard SHERPA and RSP Manager The Scholarly Communication Landscape: Perspectives from Manchester University.
Institutional Policies and Processes for Mandate Compliance Bill Hubbard SHERPA and RSP Manager Research in the Open: How Mandates Work in Practice RSP-RIN.
The SHERPA Project Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham.
Using the University's repository Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager.
Using the University's repository Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager.
THROUGH FAITH AND LEARNING BISHOP JUSTUS 6TH FORM Applying to AB Universities KS5 Conference Ms Linton Director of 6 th Form.
LibQUAL+ in the local context: results, action and evaluation Selena Lock & Stephen Town Cranfield University 6th Northumbria International Conference.
THE sustainability one-stop-shop for further and higher education across the UK.
LibQUAL+ in the UK and Ireland: three years findings and experience Stephen Town & Selena Lock Cranfield University 6th Northumbria International Conference.
CURL Supporting the research community Robin Green Executive Director, CURL Cardiff University, 11 May 2006.
Pdr36O review A service for students’ unions from.
Year 11 IAG session. Aims: To understand what different qualifications mean To understand what you need for different courses/an intro to what Uni’s look.
Reflecting on the results of the 2013 National Student Survey Professor Kelvin Everest PVC for Student Experience November 2013.
LibQUAL+ in the UK & Ireland: five years experience J. Stephen Town and Selena Lock, Cranfield University.
LibQUAL+ Process Overview Introduction to LibQUAL+ Workshop University of Westminster, London 21st January 2008 Selena Killick Association of Research.
APR Site Visit and Drop-In Research APR Evidence.
WHAT COUNTS IN STUDY ABROAD? Joan Anton Carbonell Kingston University BUTEX Symposium - June 2009.
Impact of the Recession Anne-Marie Martin The Careers Group, University of London.
Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
Evaluating Library Services: LibQUAL+ as a performance measurement tool J. Stephen Town Cranfield University INULS Conference 30th June 2006.
LibQUAL+™ old.libqual.org An Introduction to LibQUAL+ Selena Killick Cranfield University Presented at the Aslib Engineering Group AGM 17th January 2008.
LibQUAL+ and Beyond: Using Results Effectively 23 rd June 2008 Dr Darien Rossiter.
Chowdhury, G. and Chowdhury, S. (2006) e-learning support for LIS education in UK. In: 7th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and.
LibQUAL+ ® Survey Results Presented by: Selena Killick ARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Administrator Cranfield University Introduction to LibQUAL+
UCAS Guest Speakers Camille Evans: Bullers Wood School Careers and alternative routes to University Amy Staniforth: University of East Anglia Student.
The votes are in! What next? Introduction to LibQUAL+ Workshop University of Westminster, London 21st January 2008 Selena Killick Association of Research.
Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
How to participate in LibQUAL+ and effectively utilise the data.
Data Summary July 27, Dealing with Perceptions! Used to quantifiable quality (collection size, # of journals, etc.) Survey of opinions or perceptions.
LibQUAL+ at Cranfield University Selena Lock LibQUAL+ International Results Meeting 17 th July 2006.
Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
An Introduction to LibQUAL+ Introduction to LibQUAL+ Workshop University of Westminster, London 21st January 2008 Selena Killick Association of Research.
LibQUAL The UK and London South Bank experience.
LibQUAL 2005 at London South Bank. Peter Godwin London South Bank University 2 February 2006.
LibQUAL+™ Process Management: Using the Web as a Management Tool Amy Hoseth Massachusetts LSTA Orientation Meeting Boston, MA October 21, 2005 old.libqual.org.
After the Academy Selena Lock LibQUAL+ Results Meeting 22nd August 2005.
Effectively utilising LibQUAL+ data J. Stephen Town.
National Student Survey Outcomes Medicine 2014 Professor Lindsay Bashford Director of Academic Undergraduate Studies.
How to participate in LibQUAL+ and effectively utilise the data.
Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
LibQUAL+ ® Survey Administration LibQUAL+® Exchange Northumbria Florence, Italy August 17, 2009 Presented by: Martha Kyrillidou Senior Director, Statistics.
LibQUAL Survey Results Customer Satisfaction Survey Spring 2005 Sidney Silverman Library Bergen Community College Analysis and Presentation by Mark Thompson,
LibQUAL 2005 at London South Bank and a Lincolnshire man in Chicago.
Russell Group Universities
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER Leeds University Library LibQUAL+ at Leeds - one year on Pippa Jones Head of Customer Services, Leeds University Library.
Focus on SCONUL Institutions: Cranfield University – DCMT Campus Stephen Town.
Your LibQUAL+ ® Community: A Results Meeting American Library Association (ALA) Annual Conference Washington, DC June 25, 2007 Martha Kyrillidou, Director.
LibQUAL+ ® Survey Results Presented by: Martha Kyrillidou Senior Director, Statistics and Service Quality Programs Association of Research.
Introduction to ALIS Grades and to the Expectations of Universities.
NHS Graduate Management Training Scheme. The NHS belongs to the people It is there to improve our health and well- being, supporting us to keep mentally.
Vicky Mann – University of Nottingham Zara Hooley – University of Leicester.
Staff Meeting September Head of School’s Statement.
How to participate in LibQUAL+ and effectively utilise the data.
1.
Higher Education Fair Strode’s College 26 April pm – 8.00pm
Institutional Strategic Objectives Performance
How to participate LibQUAL+
Results and Comparisons for SCONUL
LibQUAL+ in the UK & Ireland: five years experience
Graduating Excellent Clinicians
An Introduction to LibQUAL+
11.University of Glasgow 12. University of Sheffield 13.Durham University 14. University of Birmingham 15. University of Southampton 16. University of.
Comparing the employability outcomes
UK STUDENT MOBILITY: AN UPDATE IN FIGURES (from to 2007/08)
LibQUAL+® Survey Results
Institutional Strategic Objectives Performance
Presentation transcript:

Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University

Objectives To give an overview of U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation To present the overall results of the SCONUL Cohort To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learnt

UK HE Libraries survey methods General Satisfaction –Exit questionnaires –SCONUL Satisfaction Survey Designed Surveys –Satisfaction vs Importance –Priority Surveys Outcome measurement –ACPI project National Student Survey (1 Question)

Survey methods used in the UK West, 2004 A Survey of Surveys

1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation

The UK approach Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI) UK Higher Education (HE) institutions UK & Irish HE institutions UK & Irish HE institutions 2006 – 20 UK & Irish HE institutions 54 different institutions

LibQUAL+ Participants 2003 University of Bath Cranfield University Royal Holloway & Bedford New College University of Lancaster University of Wales, Swansea University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Liverpool University of London Library University of Oxford University College Northampton University of Wales College Newport University of Gloucestershire De Montfort University Leeds Metropolitan University Liverpool John Moores University Robert Gordon University South Bank University University of the West of England, Bristol University of Wolverhampton

LibQUAL+ Participants 2004 Brunel University Loughborough University University of Strathclyde University of York Glasgow University Sheffield University Trinity College, Dublin UMIST + University of Manchester University of Liverpool Anglia Polytechnic University University of Westminster London South Bank University Napier University Queen Margaret University College University College Worcester University of East London

LibQUAL+ Participants 2005 University of Exeter University of Edinburgh University of Dundee University of Bath University of Ulster University College Northampton University of Birmingham Roehampton University University of Glasgow University of Surrey Royal Holloway UoL City University Cranfield University University of Luton Dublin Institute of Technology London South Bank University

LibQUAL+ Participants 2006 Cambridge University Library Cranfield University Goldsmiths College Institute of Education Institute of Technology Tallaght Queen Mary, University of London Robert Gordon University St. George's University of London University of Aberdeen University College for the Creative Arts University of Central Lancashire University of Glasgow University of Gloucestershire University of Leeds University of Leicester University of Liverpool University of the West of England University of Warwick University of Westminster London South Bank University

CURL University of Cambridge University of Aberdeen University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Liverpool University of London Library University of Oxford Sheffield University Trinity College, Dublin University of Manchester University of Birmingham University of Leeds University of Warwick

Pre-92 & 94 Group Cranfield University Royal Holloway & Bedford New College University of Wales, Swansea Brunel University Loughborough University Goldsmith College Queen Mary, University of London University of Dundee University of Bath University of Lancaster University of York University of Exeter University of Surrey University of Leicester University of Strathclyde

CMU+ University of Wales College Newport De Montfort University Leeds Metropolitan University Liverpool John Moores University Robert Gordon University South Bank University University of the West of England, Bristol University of Central Lancashire Anglia Polytechnic University University of Westminster Napier University Queen Margaret University College University of East London Roehampton University University of Luton Coventry University University of Wolverhampton University of Ulster

Former Colleges University of Gloucestershire University College Northampton University College Worcester

Other / Specialist Institutions Dublin Institute of Technology Institute of Education Institute of Technology Tallaght St. George’s, University of London University College for the Creative Arts

Overall Potential UK Sample to 2006 Full variety of institutions 43% of institutions* 38% of HE students (>800,000) 42% of Libraries 48% of Library expenditure *Based on Universities UK membership of 126

Time frame December – Registration January – UK Training February to May – Session I April to June – Session I results distributed July – Results meeting July to December – Session II

Dimensions of Quality Affect of Service Information Control Library as a Place

F. Heath, 2005

2003 – 5 additional questions for all SCONUL Participants Access to photocopying and printing facilities Main text and readings needed Provision for information skills training Helpfulness in dealing with users’ IT problems Availability of subject specialist assistance

2004 – 5 local question selected from a range of over 100 Different questions tailored to local needs

Sample Survey

Sample Survey… continued

2. Results from SCONUL

Response Comparisons SCONUL 2003 –20 institutions –11,919 respondents SCONUL 2004 –16 institutions –16,611 respondents Increase by 4,692 SCONUL 2005 –16 institutions –17,355 respondents Increase by 744 LibQUAL –308 institutions –128,958 respondents LibQUAL –202 institutions –112,551 respondents Decrease by 16,407 LibQUAL –199 institutions –108,504 respondents Decrease by 4,047

SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005

Respondent Comparisons Glasgow University –2005 = 1,384 –2004 = 2,178 –2003 = 503 London South Bank University –2005 = 766 –2004 = 568 –2003 = 276

Core Questions

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003

Overall Comparisons

Undergraduates

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2005

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003

Postgraduates

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2005

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2003

Academic Staff

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004

Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003

Comparisons by Dimension

Affect of Service Comparisons

Information Control Comparisons

Library as Place Comparisons

Overall Comparisons by User Group

Comments

Free text comments received 2003 London South Bank University428 University of London422 UWE, Bristol419 University of Wolverhampton413 University of Bath412 University of Gloucestershire407 Lancaster University396 Robert Gordon University395 University of Liverpool378 Liverpool John Moores University353 Royal Holloway University341 University of Wales, Swansea340 Uni of Wales College, Newport339 University of Oxford337 University College Northampton332 Glasgow University330 University of Edinburgh328 Leeds Metropolitan University327 DE Montfort University326 Cranfield University170

Free text comments received 2004 UMIST + University of Manchester1090 Trinity College Library Dublin1032 Glasgow University920 Brunel University906 University of Sheffield786 University of Westminster671 University of Strathclyde511 London South Bank University358 Anglia Polytechnic University311 Napier University299 University of Liverpool258 Queen Margaret University College251 University of York239 University of East London239 University College Worcester170 Loughborough University Library120

Free text comments received 2005 University of Exeter559 University of Edinburgh206 University of Dundee709 University of Bath527 University of Ulster854 University College Northampton142 University of Birmingham975 Roehampton University359 University of Glasgow536 University of Surrey593 Royal Holloway UoL596 City University798 Cranfield University302 University of Luton188 Dublin Institute of Technology569 London South Bank University455

Comments Comparisons Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368 Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161 Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342

Expect everything From: The library facility is uniformly of a high quality in terms of the book collection maintained, on line electronic resources and "customer care" given to the users. To: The library is consistently unimpressive, except as a consumer of funds and resources. And everything in between!

3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt

Purpose for participating Benchmarking Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+ Trialling alternative survey methods More library focused than previous in-house method Supporting Charter Mark application process Planned institutional survey failed to happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of doing something to fill the gap.

Primary aim(s) for surveying users Understand what their opinions of our service is, to inform strategic planning. Making sure we knew what customers concerns really are as we have had much lobbying by one group of students. Also nearly three years since last survey, so needed an update after much change in services. User satisfaction : as simple as that. We need to know how they view us and whether we are improving. 3 years of the same survey can have some credibility. To gain information for better planning of our service and make adjustments in areas found wanting.

Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process Majority found it straightforward Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US bias Some issues in obtaining: – addresses –Demographic data The publicity to the student body was the most time consuming part

Feedback on results Overall results were as expected by the institutions “Not too surprising really given anecdotal evidence known already” Detailed questions highlighted new information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other surveys including a parallel one

How can LibQUAL+ be improved? Summary and commentary on results More flexibility on the content and language of the questionnaire More interaction with other UK participating libraries Providing results by department, campus, and for full time and part time students Simpler questionnaire design We really need a ConvergedServQual tool! Needs to allow you to use a word other than library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre)

Changes made as a result of the survey It has strengthened our case in asking for more money to improve the environment. We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals which had been axed several weeks before the survey was conducted. Implementing PG forums to address issues raised Main Library makeover/Group study area Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating to resource expenditure at the most senior levels

Tips for participating Use a large sample Promote the survey to help increase the response rate –Online – –Posters –Notices in college newsletters etc.

Tips for participating Allow enough time to collect demographics data Exploit all areas of help and advice –ARL Web site & discussion list –JISCMail discussion list –Each other –Us!

Conclusions

LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK academic sector Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK At least half the participants would use LibQUAL+ again

Lessons learnt The majority of participants would not sample the population in future surveys The smaller the sample, the lower the response rate Collecting demographics is time consuming and subject categories are not always fitting Results are detailed and comprehensive, further analysis is complex

Acknowledgements Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University Libraries Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished Research Scholar, Texas A&M University Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas Libraries, Austin Martha Kyrillidou & ARL Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL Newsletter. Number 31. Selena Lock, R&D Officer, Cranfield University All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Defence College of Management and Technology Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University