1. ASSESSING MAJOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: THE EFFECTS ON THE USE OF LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES Amalia Monroe-Gulick Lea Currie Julie Petr University of Kansas Libraries

2. OUTLINE Background on KU Libraries’ 2013 organizational restructuring Data Analysis Database usage Additional library variables External variables Conclusions

3. REORGANIZATION Announced April 2013

4. SUBJECT LIBRARIAN ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PRIOR TO MAY 2013 *SUBJECT LIBRARIANS AND ADMINISTRATIVE HIERARCHY Dean of Libraries Assistant Dean Head of Collections Subject Librarians Head of Area Studies Subject Librarians Scholarly Communications Assistant Dean Head of Instruction Subject Librarians Head of Research Subject Librarians Director of Spencer Research Library Subject Librarians Associate Dean(s) Director of Communications & Advancement Human Resources Advisory Groups Dean’s Cabinet Management Council Subject Councils  Humanities  Sci-Tech  Social Sciences Resource Development Council Monthly Meetings  Collection Development  Reference

5. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: MAY 2013 Consultant model No more subject librarians Certain areas retained original model (International Collections) Consultants Collections

6. IMPACT ON FACULTY & STAFF Supervisor changes  71 faculty and staff encountered a supervisory change as a result of our reorganization  45% of our workforce was impacted (71/157) Position Description changes  45 employees had significant duty changes that would warrant a PD change.  29% of our workforce was impacted (45/157)  64% of the 45 impacted were faculty (29/45) Impact on Faculty  31% of faculty members have retired or resigned since 2014 to present (14)  Since re-org, hired:  4 tenure-track faculty librarians  8 academic staff (faculty status, non-tenure track, new job classification for the Libraries) Impact on Content Development  Originally 5.5 faculty assigned to Content Development  4 retirements within 2 years of the reorganization  Within the past year, 4 hires for Content Development

7. OTHER BIG CHANGES Primo roll-out Fall 2012 Content Management System, January 2014

8. CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LIBRARIES’ WEBSITE)

9. DATABASE USAGE ANALYSIS Overall Database Usage Select Subject Database Usage

10. DATABASE USAGE OVERALL *ProQuest Databases not included because of inaccurate usage data

11. DATABASE USAGE OVERALL

12. SUBJECT DATABASES CHANGE IN USAGE AVERAGE FY10-12 AND FY 13-15

13. OVERALL SUBJECT DATABASES CHANGE IN USAGE AVERAGE FY10-12 AND FY 13-15

14. SOCIAL SCIENCE DATABASES CHANGE IN USAGE FY13-15 (BY DISCIPLINE)

15. HUMANITIES DATABASES CHANGE IN USAGE FY13-15 (BY DISCIPLINE)

16. SCIENCE DATABASES CHANGE IN USAGE FY13-15 (BY DISCIPLINE)

17. ADDITIONAL LIBRARY VARIABLES

18. TOTAL INSTRUCTION SESSIONS & PARTICIPANTS REFERENCE TRANSACTIONS- DECLINING TRENDS 2012-2015, ARL MAIN CAMPUS TOTALS

19. INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATIONS FY13-FY15 LibAnalytics introduced Fall 2014 Started formally tracking all types of consultations Best data started in FY15 with more consistent usage Newly tracked services include: ETD sessions EndNote sessions Digital Humanities Digital publishing, scholarly communications Data management

20. LIBGUIDES: USAGE FY12-15 *ONLY SUBJECT GUIDES WITH MORE THAN 1000 TOTAL HITS INCLUDED

21. EXTERNAL VARIABLES Additional changes at KU to consider when looking at the changes in library usage: Change in Core Curriculum Overall changes in researcher behavior

22. CHANGE IN UNDERGRADUATE CREDIT HOURS AY09-14

23. IS RESEARCH CHANGING? The majority of faculty start their research with library databases. Close to half say they use Google Scholar first. The majority of students start their research with library databases. Close to half say they use Google first. The majority of faculty and students use Google or Google Scholar on a daily basis. Faculty and graduate students also monitor scholarly blogs, RSS feeds, and other alert services to find out about the latest research. Library discovery tools have changed research methods too and affect usage. Circulation of print continues to go down each year. Journals have grown in importance, even for the humanities.

24. INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR  Borrego, Angel and Lluis Anglada. “Faculty Information Behaviour in the Electronic Environment: Attitudes Towards Searching, Publishing, and Libraries,” New Library World, Vol. 117, No. 3/4 (2016): 173-185.  DeGroote, Sandra L, Mary Schultz, and Deborah D. Blecic. “Information-Seeking Behavior and the Use of Online Resources: a Snapshot of Current Health Sciences Faculty,” Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 102, No. 3 (2014): 169-176.  Gil, Esther L. “Information-Seeking Behavior of Business and Economics Faculty: A Case Study,” Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, Vol. 21, No. 1(2016): 60-78.  Johnson, Paula C. and Jennifer E. Simonsen. “Do Engineering Master’s Students Know What They Don’t Know?: Exploring Abstracting and Indexing Service Use and Non-Use,” Library Review, Vol. 64, No. 1/2 (2015): 36-57.  Rupp-Serrano, Karen, and Sarah Robbins. “Information-Seeking Habits of Education Faculty,” College and Research Libraries,” Vol. 74, No. 2(2013): 131-142.  Zhang, Li. “Use of Library Services by Engineering Faculty at Mississippi State University, a Land Grant Institution,” Science and Technology Libraries, Vol. 34, No. 3 (2015): 272-286.

25. CONCLUSIONS

26. DATA IS NOT ALWAYS (EVER) NEAT AND PRETTY Inconsistent data=frustration: Usage data Instruction data Consultation data Circulation data LibGuide data

27. THE PERFECT STORM  Changes came in close proximity.  Lack of subject expertise.  Some databases are no longer taught.  Some LibGuides are no longer used.  No longer teaching 100’s of first year English classes.  Primo and usage.  Mixed messages to faculty and changes in outreach.  Internal confusion.

28. LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS  Changes to Databases by Subject.  Changes in LibGuide authoring.  Content Development Communication Plan and help from the Office of Communications and Advancement.  Working with Center for Faculty.  Promoting resources to colleagues.  Members of Content Development serve on Cross Functional Initiatives teams. (Discovery, Information Literacy, etc.

29. DISCUSSION Are other libraries seeing similar trends? Are other libraries seeing different trends?

30. CONTACT US Amalia Monroe-Gulick – almonroe@ku.edu almonroe@ku.edu Lea Currie – lcurrie@ku.edulcurrie@ku.edu Julie Petr – jpetr@ku.edujpetr@ku.edu