03-08-2012, 10:13 AM
A Survey of User Perception and Satisfaction with Reference Services in University Libraries of Punjab
A Survey.docx (Size: 188.61 KB / Downloads: 83)
Introduction
Despite the processing and propagation of library resources, a key trait of a university library is the services based around personal interaction between users and the library staff. Libraries should make sure that these services show proper levels of customer care and that the information given to the users is useful and at the right level(Loughborough University Library, 2005). Retting (1993) has pointed out that the distinguishing features of reference include a staff designated to provide the service; a collection of reference works accessible to the public in an area set aside for the provision of the service; adequate guides to the library’s resources; and a high degree of interaction between the staff and the clientele.
Although in today’s world the term reference service encompasses more activities than mentioned by Retting. In this context Mitchell (2008) has rightly said that today’s reference librarians are actively engaged with the many emerging new processes by which learning occurs. Further, reference librarians in academic and research libraries are actively engaged with the many emerging new processes not only by which learning occurs, but also by which research is done. To be successful, today’s reference librarians need to not only understand but also embrace current and emerging technologies affecting reference functions and the information needs of library users. Indeed, wherever or however we provide reference service, we are all cognizant of the major changes in libraries – changes that stem from countless cultural, economic, legal and social developments that have impacted, and continue to impact, our work. Similarly King (2005) and Hiller (2001) have mentioned that the information needs and expectations are continuously changing in the rapidly changing information scenario. Libraries need to re-orient their collections, services, and facilities to keep pace with these advancements. User feedback is considered as a more reliable factor in measuring the utility and effectiveness of any library. This is the reason that library user surveys have become widespread in academic libraries during the past twenty years. Surveys have often been used as a tool to assess service quality and user satisfaction. By making user surveys a regular part of the library’s functions, librarians can provide a comparative ‘snapshot’ of usage in various temporal contexts.
Background of the Study
The provision of reference services has been, and still is, at the heart of all libraries in every sector be it academic, public or special. Until the internet changed forever the way we access information, it was the exclusive preserve of the “Reference librarian” to provide information directly to the client (Weddell, 2008). Evaluation of library reference services began in earnest in the late 1960s and early 1970s when budgetary situations required justification of the existence of all services in the library. A close examination of a reference service provides library administration and involved librarians with a clear understanding of how well the service is meeting its intended goals, objectives, and outcomes, how well the service is helping users fulfill their information needs, and whether the expended resources are producing the desired results (Pomerantz, Luo& McClure, 2006). Evaluation of reference services from different point of view serves different purposes. For example Saxton & Richardson (2002), has pointed out that most reference evaluation studies employ either “the query-oriented approach primarily concerned with testing the accuracy of answers to reference” or “the obtrusive user-oriented approach primarily concerned with testing levels of user satisfaction with the service”. Similarly Whitlatch (2000) has mentioned four primary features of reference services for evaluation such as “economic feature”, e.g. cost effectiveness, productivity measure; “service process”, e.g. measures of satisfaction with the service provided; “resources”, e.g. measures of quantity and quality of materials, staffing, equipment, and facilities supporting the service; and “service outcomes or products”, e.g. measures related to the quality of answers or information delivered. Grossa& Saxton (2002) reported a secondary analysis of a user survey administered in 13 public libraries and examined user ratings of reference services by transaction type. Transaction type is defined dichotomously as self-generated (users transacting questions they have determined for themselves) or imposed (agent users in the library seeking information on behalf of someone else).
Methodology
The survey is limited to all public sector general university libraries (central library/main library) (N=10) of the Punjab province (Pakistan) having a reasonable collection, staff, and separate reference section, as well as a reference librarian. One hundred questionnaires were distributed in each university library selected for the study. The sample from all public sector universities was purposefully selected from library users. To be included in the selection, a library user had to be full time student or faculty/staff member. Addition¬ally, he also has some experience of using library reference services. The questionnaire was distributed to the users during their physical visits to the concerned library.A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey research design was employed. It was a cross-sectional survey because the data were collected from the subjects at one point in time. This was done keeping in view the time constraints. Out of 1000 questionnaires distributed, 507 filled in questionnaires were returned to the researchers in the usable form. The rate of response was, therefore, 50.7 % in our case which was sufficiently high with regard to a survey research design. All areas of reference services to measure different constructs were combined in the form of a questionnaire (containing 24 questionnaire items/statements). It used a five-point Likert scale. The scale used for each item was from 1 strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To assess the reliability and validity of the scale, Cronbach’s alpha (α) was executed on the scale. The Cronbach alpha value is 0.911, which is higher than the general standard of 0.80, items suggesting a good reliability of overall questionnaire.
Comparison of User Satisfaction with the Reference Services among the University Libraries
Opinions of the users about their satisfaction with reference services among different libraries were compared on a five-point scale. Mean scores of their satisfaction level of reference services about different libraries are given in Table 8. To see the significance of difference between means of satisfaction, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. It is a technique that partitions the total variation – a term distinct from variance and measured by the sum of squares of deviations from the mean – into components, each of which may be attributed to a definite source of variation (Shafique&Mahmood, 2007). The results of ANOVA show that there is significant difference (at the 0.05 alpha levels) among the means of different universities. The results show that satisfactions of the respondents about different services in universities are different (See table 8).
Suggestions Provided by the Respondents
The analysis of the free-text comments also provides more qualitative information from the users’ perspective. Of the 507 respondents, 274 (54%) provided their suggestions for the improvement of reference and other library services. Most of them recommended for the provision of more facilities and reference services (n= 99), acquisition of new and updated reference material for all subjects (n= 84) and provision of more reference services as mentioned in the questionnaire. Other important suggestions were that the reference librarian and other reference staff should be competent, well trained and should be able to answer all the queries of the users. They recommended the provision of good ICT facilities and online reference services as well (See table 9).