69,255 research outputs found
[Newspaper Clipping: Author Claims Evidence of Second JFK Assassin #1]
No full textNewspaper article titled "Author Claims Evidence of Second JFK Assassin." The article states that author Richard J. Whalen concluded "that there is circumstantial evidence to support the theory of a second assassin in the shooting of President John F. Kennedy.
Evidence Summary: Music Information Seeking Behaviour Poses Unique Challenges for the Design of Information Retrieval Systems
Full text linkObjective – To better understand music information seeking behaviour in a real life situation and to create a taxonomy relating to this behaviour to facilitate better comparison of music information retrieval studies in the future.
Design – Content analysis of natural language queries.
Setting – Google Answers, a fee based online service.
Subjects – 1,705 queries and their related answers and comments posted in the music category of the Google Answers website before April 27, 2005.
Methods – A total of 2,208 queries were retrieved from the music category on the Google Answers service. Google Answers was a fee based service in which users posted questions and indicated what they were willing to pay to have them answered.
The queries selected for this study were posted prior to April 27, 2005, over a year before the service was discontinued completely. Of the 2208 queries taken from the site, only 1,705 were classified as relevant to the question of music information seeking by the researcher. The off-topic queries were not included in the study.
Each of the 1,705 queries was coded according to the needs expressed by the user and the information provided to assist researchers in answering the question. The initial coding framework used by the researcher was informed by previous studies of music information retrieval to facilitate comparison, but was expanded and revised to reflect the evidence itself.
Only the questions themselves were subjected to this iterative coding process. The answers provided by the Google Answer researchers and online comments posted by other users were examined by the author, but not coded for inclusion in the study.
User needs in the questions were coded for their form and topic. Each question was assigned at least one form and one topic. Form refers to the type of question being asked and consisted of the following 10 categories: identification, location, verification, recommendation, evaluation, ready reference, reproduction, description, research, and other. Reproduction in this context is defined as “questions asking for text” and referred most often to questions looking for song lyrics, while evaluation typically meant the user was seeking reviews of works (p. 1029). Sixteen question topics were outlined in the coding framework. They included lyrics, translation, meaning (i.e., of lyrics), score, work, version, recording (e.g., where is an album available for purchase), related work, genre, artist, publisher, instrument, statistics, background (e.g. definitions), resource (i.e. sources of music information) and other.
The questions were also coded for their features or the information provided by the user. The final coding framework outlined 57 features, some of which were further subdivided by additional attributes. For example, a feature with attributes was title. The researcher further clarified the attribute of title by indicating whether the user mentioned the title of a musical work, recording, printed material or related work in their question. More than one feature could appear in a user query.
Main Results – Overall, the most common questions posted on the Google Answers service relating to music involved identifying works or artists, finding recordings, or retrieving lyrics. The most popular query forms were identification (43.8%), location (33.3%), and reproduction (10.9%). The most common topics were work (49.1%), artist (36.4%), recording (16.7%), and lyrics (10.4%). The most common features provided by users in their posted questions were person name (53%), title (50.9%), date (45.6%), genre (37.2%), role (33.8%), and lyric (27.6%). The person name usually referred to an artist’s name (in 95.6% of cases) and title most often referred to the title of a musical work. Another feature that appeared in 25.6% of queries was place reference, almost half of which referred to the place where the user encountered the music they were enquiring about. While the coding framework eventually encompassed 57 different features, a small number of features dominated, with seven features used in over 25% of the queries posted and 33 features appearing in less than 10%. The seven most common features were person name, title, date, genre, role, lyric, and place reference.
Lee categorized most of the queries as “known-item searches,” even though at times users provided incorrect information and many were looking for information about the musical item but not the item itself (p. 1035). Other interesting features identified by the author were the presence of “dormant searches,” long standing questions a user had about a musical item, sometimes for years, which were reawakened by hearing the song again or other events (p. 1037). Multiple versions of musical works and the provision of information gleaned third hand by users were also identified as complicating factors in correctly meeting musical information needs.
Conclusion – While certain types of questions dominated among music queries posted on the Google Answers service, there were a wide variety of music information needs expressed by users. In some cases, the features provided by the user as clues to answering the query were very personal, and related to the context in which they encountered the work or the mood a particular work or artist evoked. Such circumstances are not currently or adequately covered by existing bibliographic record standards, which focus on qualities inherent in the music itself. The author suggests that user context should play a greater role in the testing and development of music information retrieval systems, although the instability and variability of this type of information is acknowledged. In some cases this context could apply to other works (film, television, etc.) in which a musical work is featured. Another potential implication for music information retrieval system development is a need to re-evaluate the terminology employed in testing to ensure that it is the language most often employed by users. For example, the 128 different terms used in this study to describe how a musical item made the user feel did not significantly overlap with terms employed in a previous music information retrieval task involving mood classification conducted through MIREX, the Music Information Retrieval Evaluation Exchange, in 2007. The author also argues that while most current music information retrieval testing is task-specific – e.g., how can a user search for a particular work by humming a few bars or searching for a work based on its genre, in real life, users come to their search with information that is not neatly parsed into separate tasks. The study affirms a need for systems that can combine tasks and/or consolidate the results of separate tasks for users
Open Access Complements Interlibrary Loan Services, but Additional User Education is Needed [Evidence Summary]
Full text linkA Review of:
Baich, T. (2015). Open access: Help or hindrance to resource sharing? Interlending & Document Supply, 43(2), 68-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ILDS-01-2015-0003
Abstract
Objective – To examine interlibrary loan (ILL) request rates for open access (OA) materials and determine how OA may affect resource sharing. This research updates the author’s previous study.
Design – Quantitative analysis.
Setting – A large, urban, public research university library system in the United States of America.
Subjects – 1,557 open access ILL material requests among 23,531 total ILL requests submitted during the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years (July 2011-June 2013).
Methods – The library has tracked and recorded OA requests that appear among ILL material requests since 2009. Using OCLC’s ILLiad software to manage ILL requests, they have implemented two custom routines. One routine is for open access searching on standard items, and uses software plugins to search across various open resources. All materials published prior to 1923 are treated as being in the public domain, so requests for these materials are automatically routed to this queue. The second custom routine is used for searching for OA electronic theses and dissertations, and is employed when the requested resource is not found in the library’s subscription resources. Other article requests are routed to the RapidILL service for open access availability.
Main Results – The research presented reveals that ILL requests for OA materials exhibited a steady increase year over year, while overall ILL requests decreased slightly. This finding is true both for the fiscal years reported in this study and also the years since the author’s original study in 2011 (Baich, 2012). Of the 1,557 OA requests examined, 72% (n=1,135) were for journal articles, 8% (n=125) were for books or book chapters, 9% (n=140) were for theses or dissertations, 3% (n=54) were for conference papers, and 7% (n=105) were for reports.
Library staff typically fill these article requests using gold OA or green OA sources. The researcher notes the difficulty in refining by source, though confirmed that 15% of articles requested (n=170) were filled using a gold OA source, and that another 30 article requests (~2.6%) were filled with materials available in the public domain. This leads to the conclusion that the majority of article requests are filled using green OA sources. As the library also includes OA collections within its electronic resources, staff filled 13% of ILL article requests (n=152) using journals and repositories from these sources. Another 16% of article requests were filled using a combination of various online open repositories, including subject repositories (n=83), institutional repositories (n=84), or national or consortial repositories (n=16).
The author includes a similar breakdown of fulfillment rates and sources for the other main categories explored – books and book chapters, theses and dissertations, conference papers, and reports – representing a combined 27% of all OA ILL requests. Regarding this content, it is noteworthy that overall open access requests for these material categories has dropped across each category when compared to the author’s previous study, with the exception of report requests, which more than doubled compared to that previous study.
The study includes a brief overview of the user status for users making the various open access requests, with undergraduate students (n=283) and graduate students (n=807) combined making 70% of all requests. Subject areas are also briefly examined, with ILL requests coming from 63 different schools or departments across the library system. The top 15 are reported, with Psychology being the top requester (n=198), followed closely by Engineering & Technology (n=182). The author notes that 7 of the top 15 are STEM or health science disciplines.
Conclusion – The rate of ILL requests for OA materials shows that library users continue to struggle with information retrieval. The researcher concludes that in many cases, making an ILL request is easier for the user than completing a thorough search. Since staff resources are being redirected to fill user requests for materials that are readily available through open access, this use of staff time may have impacts on resource sharing and the library’s ability to fill ILL requests. The author identifies benefits of using OA resources, including an increased ability of staff to fulfill ILL requests, especially when providing grey literature, theses and dissertations, and conference papers and reports. Another identified benefit was the decreased turnaround time for securing materials, with immediate availability via OA saving 1.15 days to deliver materials to the user. Finally, the library estimates cost savings of over $27,000 (USD), based on estimated traditional per unit ILL costs
Evidence Summary: The Library of Congress, Dewey Decimal, and Universal Decimal Classification Systems are Incomplete and Unsystematic
Full text linkObjective – To determine the extent to which knowledge is currently addressed by the Library of Congress (LCC), Dewey Decimal (DDC), and Universal Decimal (UDC) classification systems.
Design – Comparative analysis of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems using Zin’s 10 Pillars of Knowledge.
Setting – The Faculty of Philosophy and Science at a Brazilian university.
Subjects – Forty one subject-related classes and 386 subclasses from the first two levels of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems.
Methods – To evaluate the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems, the researchers employed the 10 Pillars of Knowledge, a “hierarchical knowledge tree” developed by the lead author of this study (p. 878). According to the authors, the 10 Pillars of Knowledge seek to illustrate relationships between fields of knowledge while capturing their breadth. The first level of the Pillars consists of the following categories: Knowledge, Supernatural, Matter and Energy, Space and Earth, Nonhuman Organizations, Body and Mind, Society, Thought and Art, Technology, and History. Each of the 10 Pillars is further subdivided, resulting in a four level hierarchical structure of 76 categories. Of the 76 categories, 55 are unique subject areas. A selection of subject-based classes and subclasses from the first two levels of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems were then mapped to the relevant subclasses within the Pillars. Analysis was limited to the first two levels of LCC, DDC, and UDC, except for the LCC categories of BF and BL where further subclasses were analyzed. Classes or subclasses in LCC, DDC, or UDC that were not subject based (for example, those based on publication type) were excluded from the study. In total, 41 main classes and 386 subclasses from LLC, DDC, and UDC were categorized using the 10 Pillars.
Main Results – The LLC, DDC, and UDC systems were deemed to be complete and systematic in their coverage of only three of the 10 Pillars: Matter and Energy, Thought and Art, and History. This means that there was at least one class or subclass in each of the three systems that corresponded to the subclasses in these pillars. The remaining seven pillars were only partially covered by the three systems to varying degrees. For example, the coverage of religion in LCC and DDC show evidence of a bias towards Christianity and incomplete coverage of other faiths. In addition to the lack of completeness in terms of subject coverage, the researchers found inconsistencies and problems with how relationships between subjects were illustrated by the systems. For example, botany should be a subclass of biology, but the subjects occupy the same level in the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems. Researchers also noted cases where subclasses on the same level were not mutually exclusive e.g., the BR (Christianity) and BS (The Bible) subclasses in LCC. Overall, LLC performed slightly better than DDC or UDC, covering 47 of the 55 unique subject categories in the 10 Pillars. It was followed by UDC with 44 out of 55, and DDC with 43 out of 55. Some of the 55 unique subject categories in the 10 Pillars system were not represented by any of the systems: 3 subclasses under Society (Society at Large – Area Based, Social Groups – Age, and Social Groups – Ethnicity), 2 under Technology (Technologies – Materials and Technologies – Processes), and 1 under Foundations (Methodology).
Conclusion – The researchers conclude that none of the three major classification systems analyzed provides complete and systematic coverage of the world of knowledge, and call for the library community to move to new systems, such as the 10 Pillars of Knowledge
LIS Practitioner-focused Research Trends Toward Open Access Journals, Academic-focused Research Toward Traditional Journals [Evidence Summary]
Full text linkA Review of:
Chang, Y-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002
Objective – To examine the occupational characteristics and publication habits of library and information science (LIS) authors regarding traditional journals and open access journals.
Design – Content analysis.
Setting – English language research articles published in open access (OA) journals and non-open access (non-OA) journals from 2008 to 2013 that are indexed in LIS databases.
Subjects – The authorship characteristics for 3,472 peer-reviewed articles.
Methods – This researcher identified 33 total journals meeting the inclusion criteria by using the LIS categories within 2012 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find 13 appropriate non-OA journals, and within the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify 20 appropriate OA journals. They found 1,665 articles by 3,186 authors published in the non-OA journals, and another 1,807 articles by 3,446 authors within the OA journals.
The researcher used author affiliation to determine article authors’ occupations using information included in the articles themselves or by looking for information on the Internet, and excluded articles when occupational information could not be located. Authors were categorized into four occupational categories: Librarians (practitioners), Academics (faculty and researchers), Students (graduate or undergraduate), and Others. Using these categories, the author identified 10 different types of collaborations for co-authored articles.
Main Results – This research involves three primary research questions. The first examined the occupational differences between authors publishing in OA journals versus non-OA journals. Academics (faculty and researchers) more commonly published in non-OA journals (58.1%) compared to OA journals (35.6%). The inverse was true for librarian practitioners, who were more likely to publish in OA journals (53.9%) compared to non-OA journals (25.5%). Student authors, a combined category that included both graduate and undergraduate students, published more in non-OA journals (10.1%) versus in OA journals (5.0%). The final category of “other” saw only a slight difference between non-OA (6.3%) and OA (5.5%) publication venues.
This second research question explored the difference in the proportion of LIS authors who published in OA and non-OA journals. Overall, authors were more likely to publish in OA journals (72.4%) vs. non-OA (64.3%). Librarians tended to be primary authors in OA journals, while LIS academics tend to be primary authors for articles in non-OA publications. Academics from outside the LIS discipline but contributing to the disciplinary literature were more likely to publish in non-OA journals. Regarding trends over time, this research showed a decrease in the percentage of librarian practitioners and “other” authors publishing in OA journals, while academics and students increased their OA contributions rates during the same period.
Finally, the research explored whether authors formed different types of collaborations when publishing in OA journals as compared to non-OA journals. When examining co-authorship of articles, just over half of all articles published in OA journals (54.4%) and non-OA journals (53.2%) were co-authored. Overall the researcher identified 10 types of collaborative relationships and examined the rates for publishing in OA versus non-OA journals for these relationships. OA journals saw three main relationships, with high levels of collaborations between practitioner librarians (38.6% of collaborations), between librarians and academics (20.5%), and between academics only (18.0%). Non-OA journals saw four main relationships, with collaborations between academics appearing most often (34.1%), along with academic-student collaborations (21.5%), practitioner librarian collaborations (15.5%), and librarian-academic collaborations (13.2%).
Conclusion – LIS practitioner-focused research tends to appear more often in open access journals, while academic-focused researcher tends to appear more often in non-OA journals. These trends also appear in research collaborations, with co-authored works involving librarians appearing more often in OA journals, and collaborations that include academics more likely to appear in non-OA journals
Evidence Summary: Enhanced Catalogue Records Positively Impact Circulation but Are Not Used to Their Potential in Patron Searching
Full text linkObjective – To determine how content-enriched catalogue records impact the circulation rates of print resources in four subject areas, and to investigate how this additional metadata influences OPAC searching and item retrieval.
Design – Analysis of circulation data, bibliographic records, and OPAC search logs.
Setting – A library at a four-year undergraduate residential college in the North-eastern United States.
Subjects – Bibliographic records for 88,538 titles; data from 7,782 circulation transactions; and 130 OPAC search strings and related circulation data.
Methods – In the first part of the study, bibliographic records for print items published since 1990 were extracted from the library’s integrated library system (ILS) in the following Library of Congress (LC) classes: D, E, F, H, J, L, P, Q, R, S, and T. It is assumed that electronic books were excluded from this study because their usage is not tracked in the ILS. These LC classes were chosen to correspond to the subject areas targeted by the researchers for comparison – “history, social sciences, language and literature, and science and technology” (p. 416). The data file included the publication date of the title, as well as values for the MARC fields identified by the researchers as containing content-enriched data. These fields were MARC 505 (an item’s table of contents or list of works included), MARC 520 (summaries or annotations), and MARC 856 (URL to electronic location of related material or electronic copy) (p. 416; Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office, 2003, 2008a, 2008b). The authors analyzed records for 88,538 titles and determined the total number of records containing each of the MARC fields either singly or in combination.
Data relating to circulation transactions for items located in these LC classes from January to May 2009 was also identified. Like the bibliographic records, circulation data was pulled for print items only. The researchers identified 7,782 circulation transactions that met the study criteria for the period in question.
In the second part of the study, circulation data for September 22, 2009 was obtained and sorted into the four subject categories identified in Part I of the study. The authors indicate that this date was chosen at random, but do not specify how. Researchers compared the records of the 133 titles borrowed that day from the LC classes studied to the OPAC search logs from September 16-22, 2009 to determine which searches led to the circulation of these items. The authors felt that searches resulting in checkouts on the day in question may have begun earlier in the week. The searches that led to borrowing were recorded and categorized as keyword, title, author, or other searches. If a user entered a title or author name into the keyword field, these were classed as known item searches in the appropriate categories. The authors identified and analyzed 130 searches relating to circulated items.
Main Results – In the first part of the study, the number of catalogue records that contained MARC 505, 520, and/or 856 fields significantly increased for titles published between 1990 and 2007, with a slight decrease in 2008. MARC 505 was the most common content-
enriched field until 2000, after which the presence of MARC 856 grew significantly. The MARC 520 field was used least often, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about its impact on circulation.
The incidence of enhanced records was very low among older books in the study. Only 14.3% of items published between 1990 and 1994, and 19.3% of items published between 1995 and 1999, had records that contained MARC 505, 520, or 856 fields. In contrast, the percentage of enhanced records was very high (80.9%) for items published between 2005 and 2008. The authors acknowledged that these stark imbalances created skewed comparison data for items published in these date ranges. As such, they suggested that the data for titles published between 2000 and 2004 offered the most balanced comparison because the numbers of enhanced and non-enhanced records were almost equal. The overall circulation of items with enhanced records published between 2000 and 2004 was 2.9% higher than for items with non-enhanced records, constituting a relative percentage difference of 30.7%. The relative percentage difference in this period was higher for books in science and technology (36.9%), followed by history (34%), language and literature (30.6%), and social sciences (25.7%). Enhanced records also had a positive impact on circulation for items published between 1990 and 2000 over their non-enhanced counterparts; however, this positive growth levelled off for items published between 2005 and 2008, with almost equal circulation rates between items with enhanced and non-enhanced records during this period. The impact of the three MARC fields was examined, and the presence of the MARC 505 field was most associated with increased circulation rates, in part because it was the most commonly used field of the three for the period in question. The number of records with MARC 520 and 856 fields was not sufficient to draw firm conclusions about their impact on circulation. While not the focus of the study, the circulation data also suggested a preference for current titles among all four subject areas, most significantly among the social sciences and science and technology.
The second part of the study found that keyword searching was the most common strategy employed by patrons, with 49.6% of the 130 searches examined falling into this category. Keyword searches most commonly led to the borrowing of items from the history LC classes, while title searches were most common in science and technology. Known item searches (title or author) accounted for 45.9% of the overall searches analyzed. However, in most cases, the search terms used that led to a title circulating were found in the title and subject fields, rather than in a content-enriched MARC field. The researchers suggested that this may be due to the appearance of search results in the OPAC (brief rather than full record) and the way relevancy sorting was calculated, as contents notes were not given a high weighting in the OPAC’s formula.
Conclusion – The study found that enhanced catalogue records led to higher circulation rates in the four subject areas studied. The increased proportion of content-enriched records in the overall catalogue in recent years suggested that their value had been recognized by the library. The limited role these enhanced fields played in the September 22, 2009 searches suggested that further work on improving how this information is displayed to users in the OPAC and sorted is needed. The researchers identified areas for future research including the role of the publication date and the impact of improvements to the display of content fields in the OPAC on the circulation of items with content-enriched records
Evidence summary : an awareness of library patrons’ social styles may play a role in librarians’ satisfaction with the reference interview
Full text linkA Review of:
Sisselman, P. (2009). Exploiting the social style of patrons to improve their satisfaction with the reference interview. Library Review, 58, 123-133.
Objective – To determine if a patron’s social style affects how satisfied the patron and the librarian working with him/her are with the reference interview, and if a librarian’s knowledge of social styles leads to greater satisfaction with the reference interview for all involved.
Design – Direct observation, two survey instruments, and a checklist used to identify patrons’ social styles.
Setting – A public library system in the Northeastern US.
Subjects – A total of 24 library patrons who sought assistance at the reference desk of a public library and the five librarians who delivered reference services to them.
Methods – The researcher observed 24 reference interviews conducted by five different librarians at a reference desk in a public library system. It is unclear if all 24 interviews took place in the same library. Reference interviews that took place during the times the researcher was on site and did not relate to the use of the public computer terminals were included in the study.
During each interaction, the researcher compared the patron’s behaviour to a checklist of traits relating to assertiveness and responsiveness. For example, more assertive behaviours included moving and talking quickly and sustained eye contact. Less assertive behaviours included “waiting to be asked” and soft speech (p. 127). More responsive behaviours usually consist of a greater willingness to engage on an emotional level with the librarian and more open facial expressions and gestures.
The balance of behaviours across the two categories was used by the researcher to determine which of the following social style categories a patron belonged to: driver, analytical, amiable, or expressive. Drivers, described in social style theory as “practical and task orientated,” were those who demonstrated “less responsive” and “more assertive” behaviours at the desk (pp. 127-128). Those who were “less responsive” and “less assertive” were labelled analytical (p. 128). According to social style theory, analyticals “collect quite a bit of data before making decisions” and are methodical (p. 127). Patrons who were “more responsive” and “less assertive” were determined to be amiable; and expressives were those who were “more responsive” and “more assertive” (p. 128). Amiables are described as “easy-going” and expressives as “outgoing” and “spontaneous” (p. 127).
After the researcher had observed twelve reference interviews, the participating librarians received information on how to recognize and adapt to individual social styles. The information they received took the form of an article, a diagram of the four social style categories, and examples of famous people and their social styles. After the librarians received this information, the researcher then observed twelve additional reference interviews.
After each reference interview, the patron and librarian completed separate surveys. The surveys were adapted from the tools used by the Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program. Each survey consisted of ten questions, which gauged the patron’s and the librarian’s level of satisfaction with the reference experience. Librarians responded to questions relating to whether they were able to answer the patron’s question, their perceptions of the patron’s satisfaction, how comfortable and confident they felt during the interaction, and whether they “taught the patron something new” (p. 132). The patron survey asked about the quality of service patrons feel they received from the librarian, whether or not they found what they were looking for, and if they learned something new from the experience. A score was calculated based on the following possible responses: yes (4 points), partly (2 points) and no (0 points).
Main Results – Of the 24 patrons observed in the study, the majority (10) were analyticals. The next largest group was expressives (6), followed by amiables (4), and drivers (3). The remaining patron was classified as both a driver and an expressive because he/she held an equal number of characteristics for both categories.
The median survey scores indicated that, overall, librarians rated the quality of reference interview lower than their patrons. The median score for the librarian survey after the first twelve interviews was 28, while the median score for their patrons was 36. The correlation between these scores was r=0.27. After the librarians received information on social styles, the median score of the librarian survey rose to 32. However, the patrons’ median score dropped slightly to 35. The correlation of the scores after the intervention was r=0.57.
The responses of librarians and patrons most closely corresponded when the patrons were amiables. Amiables and the librarians who worked with them were in all in agreement on whether the patron’s question was answered. Only one of the expressives and one of the drivers disagreed with the librarians’ response to this question. In both cases, the librarians’ responses were “partly” while the patrons answered “yes” (p. 129). Twenty percent of the analyticals were satisfied with the information they received from the librarian. In some cases, they were satisfied even though the information they were provided was not what they were looking for when they first
approached the reference desk.
The study suggests that there may be a disconnect between librarian and patron responses in regard to whether the librarian taught the patron something new in the exchange. According to Sisselman, all expressives and 75% of amiables responded that they had learned something new, but only 93% of the librarians who worked with the expressives and 50% of those working with amiables felt that they had done so. The scores for drivers for this question were double those of the librarians they worked with – the actual figures were not provided by the author. The results for analyticals on this question were not reported.
Conclusion – The findings of the study suggest that a patron’s social style may play a role in how they perceive the reference interview. The author also suggests that “there may be a correlation between librarians’ understanding of the social styles of patrons (analytical, expressive, driver, or amiable) and the outcomes of reference interviews” (p. 130). Possible areas of application for these findings include improved public service and tailoring of communication and marketing strategies to the diverse social styles of current and potential patrons
OHA Committee organization chart
No full textThis archived document is maintained by the Oregon State Library as part of the Oregon Documents Depository Program. It is for informational purposes and may not be suitable for legal purposes.Title from PDF caption (viewed on June 20, 2014)Created during the 2011 Legislative session, the Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC), combined two previously existing commissions, the Health Services Commission and Health Resources CommissionMode of access: Internet from the Oregon Government Publications Collection.Text in Englis
Evidence Summary: High School Students Struggle to Find School-Related Information on the Web
Full text linkA Review of:
Shenton, Andrew K. “The Information-Seeking Problems of English High Schoolers Responding to Academic Information Need.” Library Review 57.4 (2008): 276-88.
Objective – To investigate the information-seeking behaviour of high school students looking to meet school-related information needs.
Design – Online questionnaire.
Setting – A comprehensive, publically-funded high school in north-east England.
Subjects – Seventy-seven high school students between the ages of 13 and 18 who responded to an online questionnaire that was distributed to the 900-1000 students enrolled at the institution.
Methods – An invitation to participate in an online questionnaire was sent to all students at the high school in October, 2006, via e-mail. The total number of invitations sent was not indicated, although it is noted that current enrolment at the school is approximately 900-1000 students across years 9 to 13. In the e-mail, students were provided with a link to a questionnaire posted on the school’s intranet. The questionnaire consisted of six multiple-choice and three open-ended questions. Qualitative data gathered through an open-ended question about problems encountered when seeking information for school was manually coded, and forms the focus of this article.
Main Results – Seventy-seven online questionnaires were completed by students between 31 October and 27 November 2006, when analysis of the data began. Of the 77 respondents, only 35 provided data on problems encountered when seeking information for their assignments. Most of the respondents in this group were in years nine, ten and eleven (ages 13-16), with only two in year 12 (16-17) and four in year 13 (17-18). Over half (19/35) of respondents were female. Forty remaining respondents either stated that they experienced no problems in finding the information they needed for school or did not answer the relevant question on the questionnaire. Two participants indicated that they did not have the information they needed to complete their schoolwork because they did not look for it.
Over 20 distinct information-seeking problems were identified through inductive analysis of the qualitative data provided by 35 participants. Difficulties encountered in the search for information largely fell into four major categories: problems determining an appropriate search strategy; barriers posed by limited school resources or Internet filtering software; “process frustrations” (280) stemming from the perceived inadequacies of search engines, poorly designed Web sites, and missing or broken Web links; and, “shortcomings in the retrieved information” (281) in terms of relevance and accuracy. In addition, a small number of students either indicated that they had difficulty applying the information they found to the problem that prompted the search, or were concerned about copyright restrictions on how they could use the information.
All but two of the problems reported by students related to information-seeking on the Web. The Web was the most popular source of information for students, with 71 out of 77 respondents listing it as one of the sources or the only source they consulted for school.
Conclusion – The results suggest a need for information literacy instruction among high school students, with a particular focus on effective use of the Web. The author suggests that some of the students’ frustrations may have been due to an “over-reliance” on Web resources, and could have been avoided if they were educated in the use of additional types of tools (286). This reliance on Web search engines proved problematic when Web filters impeded the students’ academic research. Some of the problems reported by students in 2006 in the search for academic information were similar to those recounted by students in 1999-2000 for the author’s earlier fieldwork in the same geographic area, including concerns about the accuracy or lack of detail of some Web sources, difficulties identifying effective search terms, and barriers posed by Internet filters. Additional research is needed to determine whether students experience the same difficulties when searching for information to meet personal needs and interests as they do when they are searching for information at the behest of a teacher
Evidence Summary: Staffing an Academic Reference Desk with Librarians is not Cost-effective
Full text linkA Review of:
Ryan, Susan M. “Reference Transactions Analysis: The Cost-effectiveness of Staffing a Traditional Academic Reference Desk.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34.5 (2008): 389-99.
Objective – To determine whether it is cost effective to staff an academic reference desk with librarians through an examination of the types of reference questions being asked and the qualifications required to answer them.
Design – Content analysis of reference transaction logs and activity-based costing for reference services based on quantitative data derived from the logs.
Setting – Stetson University, a private institution in the United States with an FTE of approximately 2500.
Subjects – 6959 phone, email, and in-person reference transactions logged at the reference desk by four full-time and two part-time librarians.
Methods – This study repurposes data originally collected to determine the frequency with which librarians turned to online versus print sources when responding to questions at the reference desk. Librarians working at the Stetson University library reference desk recorded all reference queries received in person, by phone, or by email for a total of eight months between 2002 and 2006. Data collection took place in two month intervals in fall 2002, spring 2003, spring 2006, and fall 2006. Each question and the sources used to address it were logged by the librarian. Directional questions that were not related to the library’s collections and technical questions dealing with printer or copier mechanical problems were counted, but the specifics of these questions were not recorded. It was felt that these queries would not yield data relevant to the original research question on sources used as they “did not directly relate to an information need” (391).
A total of 6959 questions were logged by librarians during the four collection periods. Questions were recorded for only 4431 transactions; the remaining 2528 queries related to printer/copier problems or non-library specific directions and were described as “direction and machine: non-informational” (394). The 4431 recorded questions were then divided into four categories derived by the researcher: look-up (a search for a known item), directional (library-specific orientation to the space and collections), technology (assistance with using library technology and electronic resources), and reference. The category of reference was further subdivided into eight additional categories: catalogue search, citation help, database help, “guide to correct databases,” “personal knowledge or referral,” “quick internet search,” research, and Serials Solutions (392). “Guide to correct databases” referred to advice on the appropriate database to answer a question and serials solutions included questions that could be answered using the Serials Solutions product, such as the availability of a particular journal or article in the collection (392). Questions were assigned to the single most appropriate category by the researcher.
Question categories were then mapped to “suggested staffing levels” (396). This determination was made by the researcher, and no details were given as to how the decision was made for each category. The three levels of staffing discussed were librarian, “trained student or staff,” and “well-trained staff/occasional librarian referral” (396).
The cost of staffing the reference desk during the eight months captured in this study was calculated by multiplying the hours worked by each librarian by his/her individual average rate of pay across the four data collection periods. Indirect staff costs such as benefits were not included in this calculation. The average cost per reference transaction was determined by dividing the total salary costs by the total number of reference queries during the periods of study. Costs for those categories of questions best addressed by a librarian could then be determined.
The actual number of librarians who participated in the study is unclear. The methodology refers to four full-time and two part-time librarians (391). However, later in the article there is reference to five full-time and three part-time librarians rather than the numbers initially stated (396). This may reflect staffing changes during the study period, with the first set of numbers referring to positions rather than individuals, but this cannot be verified with the evidence presented in the article.
Main Results – It was determined that most questions asked at the reference desk during the study period could have been addressed by trained student and staff member rather than librarians. Only 11% (784) of questions logged were deemed sufficiently complex by the researcher to require the attention of a librarian. The remaining 6175 transactions (89% of all those logged) could most likely be handled by a different staffing complement. According to Ryan, approximately 74% of the reference transactions, including directional, technology, “quick internet,” and known item searching questions could have been answered by “trained student and staff” (396). Questions on catalogue searching, databases, citations, Serial Solutions, and personal knowledge/referrals, representing approximately 15% of all questions, could have been handled by experienced and knowledgeable staff with limited librarian intervention. The complexity of the question was in part judged by the number of sources required to answer it, with most (75%) answerable with just one source.
The total cost of staffing the reference desk with librarians for the eight months studied was approximately US7.09 per reference transaction. This cost is approximate, as the exact time spent on each question was not recorded. The cost of answering “non-informational” directional and technical questions was the most significant (396). This category represented 36.3% of all questions received at the reference desk, with a total staffing cost of 7.09 x 2528). “Information-orientated” directional and technology questions followed at 15.4% (US6,110.18) respectively (396). According to Ryan, questions in all three categories could be addressed by students and staff. The cost of addressing research questions, the only category requiring librarians, was US$5557.29. Research transactions were greatly outnumbered by directional and technology related questions. An average of 3.6 research questions were asked at the reference desk during the 12 hours it was open each day, compared to 20.8 directional/technical questions.
Conclusion – The nature of questions logged at the Stetson University library reference desk suggests that it is inefficient to staff the desk with librarians, given the salary costs of such a staffing model and the fact that librarian’s skills may not be required to answer most of the questions posed. Since the number of questions that need a librarian is so low, Ryan suggests that alternative staffing and service models be considered, so the energies of librarians could be more effectively employed elsewhere in the organization in areas such as information literacy instruction and the development of enhanced web services. It is noted that any reorganization of reference services should be done in concert with user surveys, consultation with staff, and extensive training to prepare staff for new roles. Suggested areas for further research identified by the researcher include the quality of reference transactions in an increasingly online environment
- …
