Material Availability: A Study of Academic Library Performance

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a study modeled after Saracevic, Shaw, and Kantor's efforts to identify and quantify the causes of users' failures to identify and locate library materials. The researchers analyzed patron-reported and librarian-observed subject and known-item searchesThe primary purpose of the study was to determine what needed to be done to improve library services. Several important ancillary benefits were anticipated; these included involving staff, particularly those new to the organization, in aspects of the library (and perhaps the college) that were unfamiliar to them and introclueing them to the techniques and complexities of evaluating library operations. The potential for a positive political impact, particularly in terms of funding, was also noted. A steering committee comprised of four staff members planned the study, analyzed the data, and prepared the following report. All staff, however, were involved in various aspects of the actual data collection.Four criteria were used to select a type of self-study that would (1) identify the impact of library weaknesses on users, (2) evaluate functions used by patrons, (3) be feasible, and (4) serve as a management tool, not as an academic exercise.The selection of a self-study model followed an intensive review of the advantages and disadvantages associated with various library research methodologies. User surveys, document availability tests,

Should academic libraries lend LIS journals?

“…Reports of research can be found in: Gore (1975), Kantor (1976), Saracevic (1977), Smith and Granade (1978), Whitlatch and Kieffer (1978), Rinkel and McCandless (1983), Kantor (1984), Mansbridge (1986), Ciliberti et al (1987, Jacobs and Young (1995), and McCarthy (1995). All of these studies relate to availablity of monographs in University libraries.…”

Does (No) Discovery Lead to (ILL) Delivery? Comparing Transaction Logs to ILL Requests to Determine the Persistence of Library Patrons

“…He identified several areas where a user was likely to encounter an issue starting with an item not being acquired and progressing through other problem areas such as circulation and shelving, cataloging errors, and user errors. Ciliberti et al (1987) built upon Kantor's model and conducted a similar study at the William Paterson College Library in New Jersey to determine why users could not find material on the shelves. One interesting finding was that for known-item searches, "of the 206 patrons who had correct information, 21 (19 %) were searching for titles the library had not purchased."…”

Libraries Versus Users? How and How Not to Deter Library Users

“…Untidy shelves where books are in any but the prescribed order, large numbers of books still awaiting shelving, or books "shelved" on the floor in front of their bookcases, as a result, perhaps, of the ever-increasing flood of publications acquired but not managed by the library, effectively prevent users from finding what they could rightly expect to find on the strength of catalogue and loans records. Ciliberti et al [15] describe a survey conducted at William Paterson College of New Jersey Library, which indicated some reasons for student failure to retrieve materials. An evaluation of the research showed that 63 per cent of all search failures could be considered library errors, i.e.…”