15. Please rate the importance to you of maintaining quality of book collections.
All Respondents

n

%

1 (lowest)

14

4.0

2

18

5.1

3

78

22.3

4

98

28.0

5 (highest)

142

40.6

Total

350

100.0

Most respondents gave relatively high ratings (4 or 5) to the importance of maintaining the quality of book collections (69%). It is interesting that this percentage is lower than the percentage of respondents who rated the importance of print books as a 4 or 5 (82%). There were more middle ratings of 3 to this question than to the question about print books. It is also interesting that the 69% is significantly higher than the 39% who did not want to buy fewer books to fund journals.


(Count)

 

All Respondents by Academic Status

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Faculty

7

7

40

52

65

171

4.1

4.1

23.4

30.4

38.0

100.0

Graduate

3

6

18

28

33

88

3.4

6.8

20.5

31.8

37.5

100.0

Undergraduate

2

1

10

8

28

49

4.1

2.0

20.4

16.3

57.1

100.0

Staff

2

4

9

8

13

36

5.6

11.1

25.0

22.2

36.1

100.0

Other

0

0

1

2

3

6

.0

.0

16.7

33.3

50.0

100.0

Total

14

18

78

98

142

350

4.0

5.1

22.3

28.0

40.6

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)


The overall response was very similar to the responses from the different groups of users surveyed especially among faculty and graduate students. Undergraduates were more likely to give the highest rating (5) to maintaining the quality of books collections (73%) while staff members were less supportive (58%).

 

Faculty by Subject Division
 
(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

1

0

6

7

3

17

5.9

.0

35.3

41.2

17.6

100.0

Education

1

0

7

5

4

17

5.9

.0

41.2

29.4

23.5

100.0

Engineering

3

0

4

6

3

16

18.8

.0

25.0

37.5

18.8

100.0

Fine Arts

0

0

0

1

15

16

.0

.0

.0

6.3

93.8

100.0

Health Sciences

1

1

4

7

3

16

6.3

6.3

25.0

43.8

18.8

100.0

Humanities

0

0

1

5

14

20

.0

.0

5.0

25.0

70.0

100.0

Sciences

0

5

7

8

10

30

.0

16.7

23.3

26.7

33.3

100.0

Social Sciences

0

1

9

10

9

29

.0

3.4

31.0

34.5

31.0

100.0

Library

0

0

1

3

4

8

.0

.0

12.5

37.5

50.0

100.0

Other

1

0

1

0

0

2

50.0

.0

50.0

.0

.0

100.0

Total

7

7

40

52

65

171

4.1

4.1

23.4

30.4

38.0

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

 

Overall, 68% of the faculty rated the importance of maintaining the quality of book collections as either a 4 or a 5. Faculty in Fine Arts, Humanities, and the Library indicated the strongest support overall. While support was generally high in the other subject divisions, there was more middle and lower level support. Almost 20% of the Engineering faculty gave the lowest rating (1) possible to maintaining quality book collections.

 

 

Graduate Students by Subject Division
 
(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

0

1

0

1

3

5

.0

20.0

.0

20.0

60.0

100.0

Education

0

3

8

5

4

20

.0

15.0

40.0

25.0

20.0

100.0

Engineering

1

0

1

4

7

13

7.7

.0

7.7

30.8

53.8

100.0

Fine Arts

1

0

0

4

1

6

16.7

.0

.0

66.7

16.7

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

0

1

1

2

.0

.0

.0

50.0

50.0

100.0

Humanities

0

0

3

1

5

9

.0

.0

33.3

11.1

55.6

100.0

Sciences

0

1

2

4

5

12

.0

8.3

16.7

33.3

41.7

100.0

Social Sciences

1

1

4

8

7

21

4.8

4.8

19.0

38.1

33.3

100.0

Total

3

6

18

28

33

88

3.4

6.8

20.5

31.8

37.5

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

Overall, nearly 70% of the graduate student respondents gave a high rating, e.g. 4 or over, to the importance of maintaining quality book collection. A significant number (21%) were middle of road while 10% indicated that maintaining quality of the book collection was of lesser importance, e.g. 1 or 2. There were some differences in the responses across the disciplines, but again this may be a factor of the lower number of respondents in some areas. The percentage of students in Education who gave the highest ratings to the book collection was clearly less than in other disciplines while the percentages for those students in Health Sciences, Engineering, Fine Arts, and Business were generally higher.

Undergraduate Students by Subject Division
 
(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

1

0

2

4

3

10

10.0

.0

20.0

40.0

30.0

100.0

Education

0

0

1

0

1

2

.0

.0

50.0

.0

50.0

100.0

Engineering

0

0

1

0

2

3

.0

.0

33.3

.0

66.7

100.0

Fine Arts

0

0

1

2

2

5

.0

.0

20.0

40.0

40.0

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

2

0

1

3

.0

.0

66.7

.0

33.3

100.0

Humanities

0

0

0

0

3

3

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Sciences

0

0

0

0

5

5

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Social Sciences

1

1

2

2

11

17

5.9

5.9

11.8

11.8

64.7

100.0

Other

0

0

1

0

0

1

.0

.0

100.0

.0

.0

100.0

Total

2

1

10

8

28

49

4.1

2.0

20.4

16.3

57.1

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)


 

 

While 57% of undergraduate respondents considered maintaining the quality of the book collections of highest importance, 20% assigned a middle rating to this issue and 6% gave the lowest ratings. Students in both the Sciences and Humanities gave consistently strong support while the responses from students in Business and the Social Sciences were more mixed. However, the number of respondents in most areas was fairly low making it difficult to see trends based on subject divisions.