Mega Database Review: How to Have What You Want and Want What You Have MLA Conference | October 6, 2010 Mary Anne Erwin, MLS & Emily Scharf, MALS Instruction & Liaison Services | Webster University Library

Today we will discuss A comprehensive review of databases used at Webster University by 12,000 students around the US and overseas. Explain the review process, talk about successes, what we would do differently and the outcomes of this review.

A word about public institutions Webster University does not have to bid for our databases This review can also work for public institutions Photo credit: Flickr user beautifulcataya 9/8/09

Why did we do this? Photo credit: Flickr user alexanderdrachmann 4/13/06

Background Instruction & Liaison Services Department creation New staff member in charge of databases

Special Projects - 4 Year Cycle 2010 – Database review 2011 – Weed main collection 2012 – Journal review 2013 – Standing orders/weed reference collection

Goal Do our databases support the current curriculum? No mandate to cancel – only review

Who participated? Library administration Subject Liaisons – Faculty Faculty, students and staff via Library satisfaction survey Reference Librarians Entire library staff – Some Library student workers – Faculty Development Center staff

Library Administration Shared goals Communication Support

Subject Liaisons & Reference Subject-Specific Subject Liaison General / MultidisciplinaryTotal 13 Art, Theater, Dance, Literature Behavioral & Social Sciences, Legal Studies Business & Technology (Math & Comp. Sci)231 7 Education History, Political Science, International Relations6 11 Media, Communications, Religion Music9 14 Nursing, Biological Sciences014 8 Reference8 2 Philosophy, Foreign Language 2 GRAND TOTAL144

Faculty (staff & students) Faculty contacted at discretion of their subject liaison – Subject & related databases Library’s user satisfaction survey - Spring 2010 Please rate your satisfaction with library materials. __Very Satisfied __ Satisfied __Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied __Dissatisfied __Very Dissatisfied __N/A Access to online materials (e.g., databases, full-text journals, ebooks) Quality of online materials

Reference Librarians Reviewed 8 databases – E.g. Credo Reference and Gale Virtual Reference Library Communicated with the subject reviewers regarding subject databases WWWDD (What Would We Do Differently?) – Sought their input in a more formal way, earlier in the process – Perhaps ask which databases they use and why

Library Staff Survey 38 general/multi- disciplinary databases Academic Search Premier WorldCat

Process/Procedure Photo credit: Flickr user YSPsculpture 5/6/10

Procedure Databases assigned to liaisons by subject A master list was made to store all info Reviewers completed a review sheet for each database and gave databases a rating from 1-4 Library staff survey Liaison meeting Management team meeting

Master List 1.Database Name 2.Vendor 3.Liaison Proxy Server Stats Proxy Server Stats Pricing Info 7.Check with... 8.In federated search now? 9.Scoped for federated search? 10.Subscription End Date 11.Ok to renew early? 12.Explanation for cancelation/keep 13.Reviewer's Rating (1-4) 14.Link to review sheet 15.Liaison Meeting Rating 16.Savings ($) 17. Notes

Rating System Started with a scale of 1 – 5 After discussion, ended up with 1 – 4 scale Ratings: – 1 = Cancel – 2 = Questionable, Cancel If______ – 3 = Important, Fills Niche – 4 = Essential WWWDD: only one “4” rating per subject

Sample Comments and Ratings Rating : 1, Cancel Books in Print “…it does not seem worth the money to keep a resource that mostly replicates other information and whose usage has dropped by half in the last year (2008 to 2009).” Rating: 2, Cancel If… Kids Search “Due to the incongruent nature of this database (a kid-friendly interface that is searching advanced article databases), I would recommend we cancel this if we ever needed to pay for it.”

Rating: 3, Important, Fills Niche CQ Researcher “It is a valuable resource due to its background information and breadth of content types. …we have no comparable resource online.” Rating: 4, Essential JSTOR “Since this is a digital archive of scholarly journals, many historical articles are available in full-text that may not be available in full-text through other databases.”

Review Sheet Some categories on this sheet were transferred to our master list Each reviewer had two months to review their assigned databases Sample review (for a 1 database)

Surveys Library Staff – General/Multidisciplinary DBs 34 responses 27 of 40 full & PT staff 7 Student workers WWWDD?

Library Staff Survey – Results Academic Search Premier Most highly rated database – 69% of respondents rated it “4 – essential” Books in Print Lowest rated database – 35% of those with an opinion rated it “1 – cancel” – 22% rated it a “4 – essential” What we learned from (a) student and faculty

Process/Procedure - Finale Liaison meeting Management Team meeting – Submitted list of databases recommended for cancellation – Approved! RATINGNUMBER OF DBsPOTENTIAL SAVINGS / REALLOCATION “1 – Cancel because” no longer supports curriculum 11$35,000 “2 – Cancel if “ liaisons agree1$5,000 “2 -- Cancel if ” get new DB3$20, of 152 (9.8%)$60,000

Results Cancelled 15 databases Saved/reallocated $60,000 – Plus reduced acquisition, training & maintenance costs Afforded new databases Ready answers for questions as they arise – MOREnet – Stat-USA

What we learned/gained Focus on best DBs for our users = have what you want Confidence in/knowledge of our DBs = want what you have Instruction Opportunities – Library staff were unsure/no opinion about 53% of our databases – Summer Learning Series

Contact Us Mary Anne Erwin (314) Emily Scharf (314) library.webster.edu

Questions? Photo credit: Flickr user Oberazzi 12/9/06