12. Rate the importance of electronic databases.
All Respondents

n

%

1 (lowest)

6

1.7

2

6

1.7

3

25

7.1

4

52

14.9

5 (highest)

261

74.6

Total

350

100.0

Nearly 90% of all respondents rated electronic databases of high importance with ratings of either a 4 or 5. Only 3% of all respondents gave the lowest ratings (1 or 2)  possible.

 

All Respondents by Academic Status
 

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Faculty

6

5

9

33

117

170

3.5

2.9

5.3

19.4

68.8

100.0

Graduate

0

0

3

5

81

89

.0

.0

3.4

5.6

91.0

100.0

Undergraduate

0

0

6

9

34

49

.0

.0

12.2

18.4

69.4

100.0

Staff

0

1

6

5

24

36

.0

2.8

16.7

13.9

66.7

100.0

Other

0

0

1

0

5

6

.0

.0

16.7

.0

83.3

100.0

Total

6

6

25

52

261

350

1.7

1.7

7.1

14.9

74.6

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

The responses from faculty, undergraduates, and staff were similar to the overall response. However, the responses from graduate students indicated an even greater appreciation for electronic databases 97% of the graduate student respondents rated electronic databases as a 4 or 5.

 

 

Faculty by Subject Division
 
(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Business

0

0

0

3

14

17

.0

.0

.0

17.6

82.4

100.0

Education

0

0

0

2

15

17

.0

.0

.0

11.8

88.2

100.0

Engineering

0

0

0

3

14

17

.0

.0

.0

17.6

82.4

100.0

Fine Arts

1

0

1

6

7

15

6.7

.0

6.7

40.0

46.7

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

1

3

12

16

.0

.0

6.3

18.8

75.0

100.0

Humanities

1

2

2

3

12

20

5.0

10.0

10.0

15.0

60.0

100.0

Sciences

2

1

2

8

17

30

6.7

3.3

6.7

26.7

56.7

100.0

Social Sciences

1

2

3

3

19

28

3.6

7.1

10.7

10.7

67.9

100.0

Library

1

0

0

2

5

8

12.5

.0

.0

25.0

62.5

100.0

Other

0

0

0

0

2

2

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Total

6

5

9

33

117

170

3.5

2.9

5.3

19.4

68.8

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

Overall, 88% of faculty respondents rated the importance of electronic databases as a 4 or 5. The responses were particularly strong among faculty in Business, Education, and Engineering. There was more of a ratings spread among faculty in Humanities, Sciences, and Social Sciences.

 

 

Graduate Students by Subject Division
 
(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

0

0

0

1

4

5

.0

.0

.0

20.0

80.0

100.0

Education

0

0

0

0

20

20

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Engineering

0

0

0

1

12

13

.0

.0

.0

7.7

92.3

100.0

Fine Arts

0

0

0

0

5

5

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

0

0

2

2

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Humanities

0

0

1

1

7

9

.0

.0

11.1

11.1

77.8

100.0

Sciences

0

0

0

0

12

12

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Social Sciences

0

0

2

2

19

23

.0

.0

8.7

8.7

82.6

100.0

Total

0

0

3

5

81

89

.0

.0

3.4

5.6

91.0

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)


 

 

Nearly 100% of the graduate student respondents rated the importance of electronic databases as a 4 or 5. The only middle ratings, e.g. 3, came from students in the Humanities and Social Sciences. No students gave a lower rating than 3.
 

 

Undergraduate Students by Subject Division
 
(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

0

0

0

2

8

10

.0

.0

.0

20.0

80.0

100.0

Education

0

0

0

1

1

2

.0

.0

.0

50.0

50.0

100.0

Engineering

0

0

0

2

1

3

.0

.0

.0

66.7

33.3

100.0

Fine Arts

0

0

0

2

3

5

.0

.0

.0

40.0

60.0

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

0

1

2

3

.0

.0

.0

33.3

66.7

100.0

Humanities

0

0

0

0

3

3

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Sciences

0

0

2

0

3

5

.0

.0

40.0

.0

60.0

100.0

Social Sciences

0

0

4

1

12

17

.0

.0

23.5

5.9

70.6

100.0

Other

0

0

0

0

1

1

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Total

0

0

6

9

34

49

.0

.0

12.2

18.4

69.4

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

 

A clear majority of students 70% -- rated electronic resources as of the highest importance. Another 18% rated electronic databases as a 4. No undergraduate respondents rated electronic databases as lower than a 3.