Research Article
Gauging Academic Unit Perceptions of Library Services During a Transition in University Budget Models
Margaret A. Hoogland, MLS,
AHIP
Clinical Medical Librarian
and Associate Professor
University Libraries
The University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio, United States
of America
Email: Margaret.hoogland@utoledo.edu
Gerald R. Natal, BFA, MLIS,
AHIP
Health and Human Services
Librarian and Associate Professor
University Libraries
The University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio, United States
of America
Email: Gerald.natal@utoledo.edu
Robert Wilmott, MLIS
Acquisitions and Collection
Management Librarian and Assistant Professor
University Libraries
The University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio, United States
of America
Email: robert.wilmott@utoledo.edu
Clare F. Keating, MSLS
Electronic Resources
Librarian and Assistant Professor
University Libraries
The University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio, United States
of America
Email: Clare.Keating@utoledo.edu
Daisy Caruso, BA
Library Media Technical
Assistant
University Libraries
The University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio, United States of
America
Email: daisy.caruso@utoledo.edu
Received: 5 July 2023 Accepted: 1 Feb. 2024
2024 Hoogland, Natal, Wilmott, Keating, and Caruso. This is an Open
Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30379
Abstract
Objective – Beginning in Fiscal Year 2023, a university initiated a multi-year
transition to an incentive-based budget model, under which the University
Libraries budget would eventually be dependent upon yearly contributions from
colleges. Such a change could result in the colleges having a more profound
interest in library services and resources. In anticipation of any changes in
thoughts and perceptions on existing University Libraries services, researchers
crafted a survey for administrators, faculty, and staff focused on academic
units related to the health sciences. The collected information would inform
library budget decisions with the goal of optimizing support for research and
educational interests.
Methods – An acquisitions and collection management librarian, electronic
resources librarian, two health science liaisons, and a staff member reviewed
and considered distributing validated surveys to health science faculty, staff,
and administrators. Ultimately, researchers concluded that a local survey would
allow the University Libraries to address health science community needs and
gauge use of library services. In late October 2022, the researchers obtained
Institutional Review Board approval and distributed the online survey from
mid-November to mid-December 2022.
Results – This survey collected 112 responses from health science administrators,
faculty, and staff. Many faculty and staff members had used University
Libraries services for more than 16 years. By contrast, most administrators
started using the library within the past six years. Cost-share agreements
intrigued participants as mechanisms for maintaining existing subscriptions or
paying for new databases and e-journals. Most participants supported improving
immediate access to full-text articles instead of relying on interlibrary
loans. Participants desired to build upon existing knowledge of Open Access
publishing. Results revealed inefficiencies in how the library communicates
changes in collections (e.g., journals, books) and services.
Conclusion – A report of the study findings sent to library administration fulfilled
the research aim to inform budget decision making. With the possibility of
reduced funds under the new internal budgeting model to both academic programs
and the library, the study supports consideration of internal cost-sharing
agreements. Findings exposed the lack of awareness of the library’s efforts at
decision making transparency, which requires exploration of alternative
communication methods. Research findings also revealed awareness of Open
Educational Resources and Open Access publishing as areas that deserve
heightened promotional efforts from librarians. Finally, this local survey and
methodology provides a template for potential use at other institutions.
Introduction
In 2020, the
University of Toledo (UToledo)—a large public research university in the
midwestern United States—undertook a study to investigate different business
models that would recognize cost savings, revenue-generation, and strategic
opportunities to overcome enrollment and financial challenges. When the
university administration first considered decentralized budget models, the
University Libraries lent support by searching the literature and creating a
LibGuide to inform the decision-making process. The published literature
revealed the probability of closer scrutiny by departments under a
decentralized budget model, which inspired health and medical librarians to
consider a survey to increase self-awareness and address University Libraries
inefficiencies (DeLancey & deVries, 2023, p. 14).
UToledo hired a consulting group to review finances and budgetary
processes, and in November of 2021 distributed a 50-page report to university
deans. The report focused on perceived inefficiencies within the institution,
with recommendations for academic budget solutions. Based upon these
recommendations UToledo decided to implement a version of the Incentive-Based
Budgeting System (IBBS), which falls under the broader term of Responsibility
Center Management (RCM). Under RCM, entities designated as academic units are
held responsible for their own budgets and are taxed to contribute to support
units. UToledo anticipated that transitioning to a decentralized model could
take several years.
The university started transitioning to the IBBS model
in fiscal year 2022-2023. This form of budgeting may benefit academic units,
but IBBS creates challenges for libraries and other non-revenue-generating
agencies. To anticipate the possible weaknesses in and effects on library
services of this new budget model, a group of UToledo librarians and staff
formed a research team and developed a survey to identify research habits,
educational and research needs, and expectations of a specified user group
composed of health science administrators, faculty, and staff as a first step.
As the library is consistently operating under extremely tight budgets, the
information gathered would inform the libraries’ own budget decisions towards
remedying perceived shortcomings. The following sections provide historical
context for the IBBS model, summarize the results of the UToledo survey, and
discuss ramifications for UToledo and academic libraries.
Literature Review
Background
The history and terminology of the Responsibility
Center Management (RCM) budget model play a critical role in understanding the
purpose of this study. RCM is a type of decentralized management centered on
accountability and performance, pioneered by private institutions including
Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern
California in the 1970s and 1980s (Hearn, et al., 2006, p. 287; Neal &
Smith, 1995, p. 17; Myers, 2019, p. 14). Also referred to as “Revenue Center Management”
or “Value Center Management,” other institutions adopted this concept to
varying degrees (For sample listings see: DeLancey & deVries, 2023, p.
17-19). In the past, declining state support provided the impetus for public
academic institutions to experiment with alternatives to centralized budget
models (Priest, et al., 2002, p. 2). Academic institutions in the U.S. continue
to explore RCM as a solution to poor economic conditions and changing
demographics; the most recent figures from a 2015 Inside Higher Ed study as
reported by DeLancey and deVries (2023, p. 8,9) have RCM institutions at nearly
25%. Rutherford and Rabovsky (2018, p. 633) observed that RCM is more popular
in politically conservative states that rely primarily on state funding and
hypothesized the use of accountability-based systems in these states might be a
factor. Although they could not prove the latter, Rutherford and Rabovsky
(2018, p. 633) proposed that accountability-based systems could play a
progressively larger role in the future.
The basic premise of RCM and its derivatives is that
academic units have direct responsibility for generating revenue to cover
operational costs (Curry, et al., 2013). Whalen (1991, pp. 10-17) identified
nine basic concepts associated with RCM that relate to decision making
(proximity, proportionality, knowledge), motivation (functionality, performance
recognition, stability), and coordination (community, leverage, direction).
Regarding decision making, the idea is that better decisions are made at the locus
of operations, size and complexity of organizations affect the degree of
decentralization, and timely information is paramount. A proper balance of
responsibility and authority, a stable environment, and a system of rewards and
sanctions enhance motivation. Good coordination requires that central
administration retain the necessary leverage to oversee the collective
interests of the institution, under the realization that success of a unit
means the success of the whole and that there is a clear sense of direction.
Fethke & Policano (2019, p. 172) compared
centralized models commonly used in public universities in the United States to
RCM and concluded that RCM has several advantages, among them transparency,
responsiveness to environmental changes, cost reductions, and economic
efficiency. RCM may lead to innovative course development and expanded roles
for faculty in the budget process (Neal & Smith, 1995, p. 20). Critics
claim RCM in academic institutions places corporate interests over academic
concerns and the resulting competition is detrimental to the cohesion of the
institution (Deering & Sá, 2018). While RCM may foster efficiency, the
independence afforded to individual responsibility centers could negatively
affect collaboration between disciplines and lead to redundancies in programs
and resources if not controlled (Linn, 2007, p. 26). Under RCM,
revenue-generating endeavors may take precedence and have destabilizing effects
on educational policy that lead to questions ranging from cost over quality of
student services to de-emphasis or loss of the higher purpose or societal
obligations of an institution (Agostino, 1993, p. 25-6; Adams, 1997). Research
showing that programs in the sciences and technology benefit more under RCM in
the number of diplomas issued than programs in the humanities suggests the
potential for STEM programs to be favored over the Humanities (Rutherford &
Rabovsky, 2018, pp. 626-7, 632). Furthermore, this situation does not benefit
minority students, who are typically not well-represented in the STEM programs
(Rutherford & Rabovsky, 2018, p. 637). The potential exists for a
university to become a “federation of schools”, adversely affecting the
cohesive mission of the institution (Neal & Smith, 1995, p. 20).
A transition to an RCM model requires the
identification of academic “responsibility centers” (typically colleges) and
nonacademic “support units” (such as the libraries) within the organization. In
some cases, the administration receives separate funding, and other
non-academic areas such as athletic departments remain independent from the
system (Jaquette, et al., 2018; Deering & Lang, 2017, p. 103). The online
listing of institutions that utilize RCM models is evidence that this budget
model may work for some institutions, although evidence of failure exists
(Carlson, 2015, p. 4; Deering & Lang, 2017, p. 96). Successful
implementation is dependent on the ability of central administration to
coordinate with the academic units (Deering & Sá, 2018); one strategy used
to premeditate a successful implementation is to incorporate RCM to select
units beforehand. Using this strategy, Deering and Lang (2017) looked at five
case studies and reported that only two institutions made the full transition
to RCM—the others chose to return to a centralized budget model or an
alternative model.
RCM in Libraries
Few publications
exist that discuss RCM models in libraries. Riggs (1997, p. 8) predicts
libraries will “experience greater decentralization in the budgeting process”
and asks questions that address how the library might fit into this model. As
previously mentioned, libraries are typically support units; libraries receive
funding in the form of taxes—known as subvention—from the programs. Cases exist
where an academic unit may be responsible for a library (Linn, 2007, pp. 26).
Cuillier & Stoffle (2011, p. 792) discussed library for-credit courses and
potential revenue generation by the library as their institution transitioned
to RCM. Englebrecht (Englebrecht,
2004, Section 1.1.3. para. 1) noted faculty showed much greater interest concerning
costs for the cancellation of journals after RCM implementation. Indeed, RCM
makes it likely that academic units would pay more attention to library
services and resources (Neal & Smith, 1995, p. 20; DeLancey & deVries,
2023, p. 8). Also discussed is the need to devise a new two-part library
budget—a central budget for databases and reference materials, and a separate
“faculty” budget for books, journals (non-electronic and stand-alone
subscription of e-journals), serials, and the article delivery system
(Englebrecht, 2004, Sections 1.2.2. para. 1 and 1.2.4 para. 1). The article
outlines a new formula for fund allocation on the various programs that account
for such things as the number of students, researchers, research output,
support needs, and costs.
In an
examination of various budget systems for library resource allocation, Linn
(2007, pp. 25-26) notes one benefit of RCM—the lessening of inefficiency
afforded by the rollover of funds. Neal and Smith (1995, pp. 18-19) also detail
the process for developing a seven-factor cost allocation formula for services
provided to academic departments. The formula assesses taxes on undergraduate
services, technical services, and costs related to personnel, space, non-space,
and general operating costs, as well as a “common good” tax. Rogers (2009, p.
550) writes that while Penn State successfully implemented RCM, the libraries
under this system are “viewed as a conspicuous source of overhead and inhibits
our integration into the teaching, learning, and research continuum.” The need
for accurate assessment of library services and resources is stressed to
counteract negativity leveled at the library.
Most recently
DeLancey and deVries (2023) studied the impact of RCM on academic libraries
from a leadership perspective by interviewing five library deans from
institutions, who had Carnegie classification(s) similar to those of the
researchers, to learn about their experiences with RCM at their respective
libraries (pp. 11-13). With the lack of established service agreements between
the libraries and academic units, how the universities determined budget
allocations from the revenue generating units remained unclear. The deans
expressed concerns about the process of budget reductions under the RCM model.
In all but one case, academic units purportedly contributed library funding
disproportionate to revenue produced by those units. The libraries in question
reported none of RCM’s stated benefits of transparency and efficiency. Outcomes
were not compared to other institutions, and there was a difference of opinion
as to whether this would be possible due to the variables unique to
institutions such as the number of librarians to students and faculty, unequal
operating expenses, inflationary concerns, and differing priorities. The
authors ultimately determined they could not directly compare outcomes due to
the unique variables represented by the respective institutions. RCM in these
libraries did not account for inflation in the pricing of library resources;
these experiences demonstrate that the need to justify costs exists under any
budget model. By contrast, one library’s placement under a division that could
retain surplus revenue proved advantageous (p. 15). The deans advise having a
thorough understanding of RCM from the standpoint of the library and of the
institution’s accreditation standards and recommend being cognizant of its
effect on other institutional entities (pp. 13-14). Communicating how the
library’s budget operates and advocating for the library is essential, as is
being self-critical and mindful of fluctuations in the profession and the needs
of their institutions. The researchers admit to the small sample size and
unknown effects from the COVID pandemic on their budgets as study limitations
and recommend benchmarking against institutions using both centralized and
decentralized budget models (p. 15).
Aims
As STEM programs
benefit more from RCM (Rutherford & Rabovsky, 2018), this study sought to
improve the University Libraries' understanding of the needs and perceptions of
the University of Toledo health science community regarding services and resources.
The results would aid in setting the libraries’ budget priorities and provide
ideas for adjusting or improving services. Plus, anticipating the possibility
of reduced funding to the library for funding essential resources, the goal is
to explore opinions of departmental budget authorities towards cost-sharing.
Additionally, study results would provide richer qualitative data for use in
future decision making and, if needed, for development of a plan or formula for
fund allocation under RCM.
Methods
An acquisitions
and collection management librarian, two health science liaisons, an electronic
resources librarian, and a staff member reviewed the literature (Rutner &
Self, 2013) and considered the purpose, questions, and cost of using two
different nationally recognized and validated collection services surveys. Lack
of consensus in the literature concerning data analysis of LibQual+ (Scoulas
& De Groote, 2020) and cost of MISO (Baker, et al., 2018; Allen, et al.,
2013) led to development and administration of a local survey.
Survey Design
The data collection tool consisted of an 18-question
online survey created using a free version of Air Table (2022), which included
one mandatory (consent to participate) and 17 optional (multiple choice, open
response, and ranking) questions. These questions focused on two areas: The
most pertinent topics to the University of Toledo health science community and
University Libraries services or collections most influenced by changing
internal budget models. The survey did not include any questions from validated
surveys.
Two questions collected demographic information and
status (tenure track, tenured, not tenure eligible), because these factors
could influence use of library services and collections.
The next questions focused on implications to internal
budget model changes. Because of high resource costs and budget limitations,
University Libraries have occasionally sought to partner with academic areas by
entering into cost-share agreements within the institution to finance new and
ongoing e-subscriptions. These informal agreements typically occur with the
department or college that most benefits from access to the resource,
particularly when the scope of the resource under consideration is discipline
specific. Though neither panacea nor free of administrative complications,
selective resource cost-sharing has the potential for locally counteracting
financial inequities in a transparent manner. Recognizing that only Department
Heads and Deans have the authority and funding to enter into such agreements,
the question was displayed only to the administrative study participants.
Due to universal promotion of select services (e.g.,
Electronic Journals by Specialty) by university librarians, the survey included
a Likert scale (1= Poor or 5=Excellent) to gauge how the local health science
community uses these services.
Two emerging topics with budgetary influence—Open
Education Resources (OER) and Open Access (OA) publishing—inspired questions.
In 2019, the University Libraries started investigating the feasibility of
supporting OER initiatives as a cost-saving measure (Bridgeman, 2021). One
survey question sought to understand how the local health science community
currently accesses and uses OER given that the university libraries provide
minimal support. Another sought to gain perspective about OA publishing.
Finally, to capture previously unaddressed questions
and to solicit any other comments, the survey concluded with two open response
questions.
Pilot Testing
Two University
Libraries health science liaisons, who did not participate in the research
study, and the health science library director piloted the questions. The first
round of testing resulted in revisions to existing questions and removal of one
question that no longer fit the aims and scope of the project. A librarian, who
specializes in health science library collection services at another
university, also completed the pilot survey, resulting in additional revisions.
The original University Libraries colleagues then completed one final pilot
survey.
The next step
involved identification of health science decision makers by viewing college
websites, the university’s online directory, and information from departmental
liaisons. In late October 2022, the University of Toledo Social, Behavioral,
and Educational Institutional Review Board approved the study. Prospective
study participants received the survey by email in mid-November and early
December. An error in the Air Table survey design displayed a question for
health science administrators to all study participants, which led to
adjustment of the question and disregarding the non-administrator responses
when analyzing the data. Data collection ceased on December 18, 2022. Due to
varying and limited numbers of results, collected data did not undergo statistical
(Bakker, 2022) or qualitative analysis.
Results
An email
containing a link to the survey was sent to 550 health science administrators,
faculty, and staff. The response rate was 20% (n=111).
Question
1: I have been employed at The University of Toledo for
______.
This question
collected 111 responses. Study participants, as seen in Figure 1, consisted of
primarily faculty (80%, n=89), with the remaining respondents evenly split
between staff (10%, n=11), and health science administrators 10% (n=11) who
self-identified as Dean or Department Head. Most participants, (41%, n=46) have
16 or more years of experience at the University of Toledo and with the
University Libraries.
Figure 1
2022 Study
participant demographics and years of employment at UToledo.
Question
2: My current role at [The University Of Toledo is____.
I am in a _____ position.
Of the 87 faculty participants who completed the
question on promotion options, 36% (n=31) selected “tenured”, and 28% (n=24)
are in tenure track positions. The varied experiences of study participants
provided multiple perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing the
University Libraries as they prepared for the first year of IBBS.
Question 2a: If the Mulford
Health Science Library gave you lead time (e.g., up to 3 months in advance of
the deadline), would your department or college consider contributing funds to
maintain or obtain a new print or electronic subscription?
This question collected 11 responses from the
administrative study participants. Most health science administrators responded
“Yes” (n=3), “No” (n=3), and “Other” (n=3) but only a few (n=2) responded with
a “Maybe” to the question. For participants who selected “Other,” they stated
lack of budget money to pursue such an opportunity.
Questions 4-8: Use 1(poor) or
5 (excellent) stars to show your satisfaction with how the Mulford Library
provides access to_____.
Researchers selected these questions due to widespread
promotion of these services and to assess effectiveness of these services for
faculty, staff, and learners, who primarily access only the electronic
resources via the library website.
Participants could show satisfaction (e.g., “Poor” (1)
to “Excellent” (5)) with the most utilized services, as seen in Figures 2-5.
Electronic Journals by Specialty
All but four participants (n=107), as shown in Figure
2, answered this question. Half of participants (50%, n=54) selected
“Excellent” and over a third of participants (34%, n=36) selected “Very Good.”
A smaller number of participants (13%, n=14) selected “Good.” A few
participants (3%, n=3) selected “Ok” (2%, n=2) or “Poor” (1%, n=1).
Figure 2
Study
participants’ satisfaction with electronic journals by specialty.
Speed of Interlibrary Loan
Of the 102
participants who completed this question, most, as shown in Figure 3, (60%,
n=61) considered the speed of interlibrary loan to be “Excellent,” and many
(29%, n=30) considered the service to be “Good.” A smaller number of
participants (11%, n=11) considered the service to be “Ok” or “Poor.”
Figure 3
Satisfaction of
study participants with the speed of interlibrary loan.
Literature Searches
This question
received 94 responses. Most participants, as shown in Figure 4, (73%, n=69)
considered the quality of literature searches to be “Excellent.” Smaller
numbers of participants (19%, n=18) selected "Very Good.” A few
participants (7%, n=7) considered the service to be "Ok” or "Poor.”
Figure 4
Satisfaction of
study participants with the quality of literature searches.
Open Educational Resources (OER)
The question on OER garnered 94 responses, as shown in
Figure 5. Most participants (54%, n=50) considered the availability of OER to
be "Excellent.” Over a quarter of participants (28%, n=26) selected “Very
Good.” The fewest numbers of participants selected “Good” (13%, n=12) and “Ok”
(4%, n=4) or “Poor” (2%, n=2).
Figure 5
Satisfaction
with availability of Open Educational Resources.
Question
9: How do you obtain journal articles?
This question
collected 308 responses as seen in Figure 6. Many participants (33%, n=102)
obtained journal articles from PubMed and or used other Library Databases (24%,
n=74). Under a quarter used Google Scholar (21%, n=65), a personal subscription
(14%, n=44), and the smallest numbers selected Other (4%, n=13) or Departmental
funded journal subscription (3%, n=9). Fewer than 1% (n=1) selected Not
Applicable.
Figure 6
Mechanisms used
by Health Science Faculty and Administrators to obtain journal articles.
Question
10: An article is not immediately available in full
text. From the statements below, please indicate what you would do next_______?
This question
received 111 responses. Most participants (34%, n=38) searched Embase or PubMed
and placed interlibrary loan requests (28%, n=31) to obtain full-text articles.
Some (19%, n=21) searched Google Scholar or asked the library liaison or
library (14%, n=16) for full-text articles. The smallest number of participants
(4%, n=4) selected Other or Not Applicable less than (1%, n=1).
Question
11: When you have a research or other library related
question(s), what do you do?
This question
collected 111 responses as shown in Figure 7. Most participants (53%, n=59)
selected “Email your Library Liaison.” Then, participant responses dropped
significantly: 14% (n=15) selected “Stop by Mulford library for assistance,”
13% (n=14) chose “Not Applicable,” 10% (n=11) selected “Use the Ask Us IM/Chat
feature on the library website,” 8% (n=9) chose “Other,” and 3% (n=3) selected
“Make an appointment (e.g., Calendly, Bookings) with your Library Liaison.”
Figure 7
Steps taken by health science faculty, staff, and administrators to get
answers.
Open Access (OA) Publishing
This question
captured 110 responses. Many participants (45%, n=49) published one or more
articles in OA journals as seen in Figure 8. If funded, some (16%, n=18) would
consider publishing in OA journals. Fewer than a quarter of participants, (22%,
n=24) had not published in an OA journal. A small number (4%, n=4) selected “I
have a different opinion” and 4% (n=14) selected “Not applicable.”
Figure 8
Faculty, staff,
and administrators’ opinions on Open Access article publishing.
Question 13: What is your preferred way to stay
current with the Mulford Health Science Library?
This
question collected 111 responses. Participants prefer to receive information
about the Mulford library via “Departmental Email” (41%, n=45), “Newsletter”
(31%, n=34), “Announcements,” e.g., posting to the library website (14%, n=16),
“Not Applicable” (6%, n=11), “Other” (5%, n=5), and “Social Media” (4%, n=4).
For those who selected “Other,” three participants selected “library website”
and one selected all the responses.
Question 14: What information would you like to
see in a University Libraries Annual Report?
This
question gathered 111 responses. Of those, most participants (59%, n=66) chose
“Journals added to the collection.” The number of responses then dropped
considerably with 11% (n=13) choosing “Trends and New Services” (e.g.,
“Renovations to the Library,” (9%, n=10), “Journals, E-books, etc. removed from
the collection,” and “Not Applicable” (6%, n=7).
Question 15: In your opinion, how could the
Mulford Health Science Library provide better support (e.g., teaching,
research, etc.)?
This
question received minimal responses, but the following themes emerged around
communication:
·
Improve
communication on campus (e.g., discuss current services with new and existing
faculty).
·
Solicit
faculty input before cancelling journal, database, or e-book subscriptions.
·
Hire
more librarians.
·
Improve
communication with departments (e.g. communicate new or cancelled journal and
e-book titles, promote department specific services).
Service
recommendations consisted of four main themes:
·
Easier
and expanded access to online books, journals, etc. from all locations.
·
Provide
more mentoring and instruction sessions on how to conduct literature searches
for faculty and learners.
·
Include
a graduate success staff and a writing tutor in a library office. Improve
statistical support for doctoral students.
Question 16: What else would you like to share
with us?
This
question received 22 responses ranging from positive support for the work of
college liaisons and the library, comments about how the library would manage
with the changing internal budget model, suggestions for communicating
information and services to employees based at the health system or in other
off-campus locations, and a few comments expressing dissatisfaction with how
the University Libraries handled specific situations (e.g., interlibrary loan).
One participant stated that they did not use the Mulford Health Science
Library.
Discussion
The
literature review provides the background on RCM and underscores the potential
impact of moving to such a model. Some points that are brought out in the
literature, such as the importance of communication to a successful transition
and the downgrading of the importance of the library (“a conspicuous source of
overhead”) (Rogers, 2009, p. 550), provided the impetus for conducting the
survey.
Cost-sharing
Cost sharing
is a topic typically referenced to consortium deals and interlibrary loan in
the library literature, and not discussed in relation to RCM. This is an
important consideration for The University of Toledo, given that the library
might incur reduced funds under RCM. Of the eleven survey results, three
respondents reacted positively, with an additional two responding neutrally to
our question seeking insight on academic units’ current attitude toward this
subscription funding model. This is significant because the success of these
informal agreements relies on an initial and ongoing willingness to work
together for mutual benefit. As the unit responsible for subscription
administration, cost-sharing does come with a certain amount of financial risk
to libraries, particularly if the contributing college or department ends
participation at any time during the contract cycle. Libraries should consider
working with interested departments or colleges to formalize the process by
creating documentation detailing the responsibilities and expectations for each
party and including the timeframe when the agreement may next be renewed or
dissolved.
Electronic Journal and Book
Subscription Changes
Starting in
Fall 2022, some liaisons formed committees of faculty and staff, who work in
the curriculum, to assist with determining how to spend allocated funds on
print or electronic books (e-books) and to rearrange existing print collections
to improve accessibility and use of the Mulford health science library
collections. While the cost for e-books is substantial, the format provides
access to high yield content for offsite faculty, who consult and use it when
developing materials for courses. In tight fiscal years, faculty input makes
reaching consensus on tough decisions slightly easier (Gorring, et al., 2023).
Over half
(59%, n=66) of the study participants requested timely communication regarding
journals added to the collection. By contrast, only a few participants (9%,
n=10) requested a list of journals or e-books being removed from the
collection. The University Libraries does attempt to achieve this by
maintaining a LibGuide that presents, by fiscal year, e-resource additions, and
cancellations at the subscribed product level. This assumes, however, that end
users know which subscription agreement includes a specific e-book or full-text
journal title. For new single-title material purchases the University Libraries
provided a new materials list, created using the built-in search and export
functionalities within the integrated library system’s cataloging module.
Communicating the transfer of journal titles between publishers, which occurs
sporadically and in and out of large subscription packages each year, presents
additional challenges, as does changes in the distribution rights of e-resource
aggregators and educational streaming video providers.
In response
to the study participant requests for improved communication, in Summer 2023,
some liaisons contacted faculty and departments to solicit opinions about
journals and e-book platforms slated for cancellation before making
recommendations.
Existing
workflows hint at a pathway towards better compiling and distributing a
title-level listing of the abundance of materials shifting in and out of the
institution’s e-subscription access. The large-scale and high frequency of
changes complicates how this metadata could be presented so that it would be
both useful and efficient for patron use—a simple title list would likely
overwhelm patrons. Any action on this front will require more contemplation,
adequate workflow planning, and additional collaboration with the cataloging
librarian.
Open Educational Resources
The use of open
educational resources continues to show promise as a cost-reduction measure
(Bliss, Hilton, Wiley, & Thanos, 2013; Bridgeman, 2021; Delimont, Turtle,
Bennett, Adhikari, & Lindshield, 2016; Watson, Domizi, & Clouser,
2017); The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)
reported a billion dollars in savings through the use of OER between 2013 and
2018 (Allen, 2018). Over half (54%) of UToledo survey respondents expressed
satisfaction with the library's efforts to supply open educational resources;
therefore, promoting OER and educating faculty on the benefits of OER is
worthwhile for possible cost savings to academic units under RCM. Additionally, health science liaisons could
work with faculty to make capstone projects, or a semester long project
culminate with creation of an OER book, template, or patient education
material, which could be used in university clinics (Kirschner, et al., 2023,
Bradley, 2023, Giannopoulos, et al., 2021, Lierman, 2021). fewer staff and a
diversity of needs do make assisting with such requests challenging (Sugrim, et
al., 2019). Such initiatives, however, would improve the understanding of OER
at UToledo. University librarians could complete an OER certificate program,
provide better support, and perhaps encourage the health sciences community to
consider creating OER materials.
Open Access Publishing Agreements
The participants
demonstrated more familiarity with OA publishing than the researchers
anticipated, especially considering the modest amount of financial support
historically supplied by the University and University Libraries. Survey
results showed that 49 respondents published in OA journals before Calendar
Year (CY) 2023, which is not insignificant in this context. For nearly a
decade, the University Libraries’ financial facilitation of open access article
publication by external publishers remained limited to its consortial
participation in SCOAP3, which focuses on publications in high-energy physics.
At the same time, paid subscriptions remained the dominant business model
offered to libraries and readers for gaining access to peer-reviewed journal content.
Increasing subscription costs and end-user demand for a broader resource
portfolio outpaces the University Libraries budgets, further restricting local
experimentation in financially supporting OA publishing.
With the current
market shift widening the availability and variety in open access publishing
models and their financial-support infrastructure, in 2019 the University
Libraries via the OhioLINK consortium entered into an
Article Processing Charge (APC)-based open access pilot project. Due to the
modest initial financial investment and unexpected rate of participation, the
pilot program ended early on account of exhausted shared funding halfway
through the estimated runtime. For calendar year 2022, the University Libraries
via the OhioLINK consortium entered its first major publisher transformative
agreement, or “read and publish” agreement. This not only licensed access to
full-text journal content for library patrons within the consortium but also
provided a pathway for supporting local researchers seeking to participate in
open access article publishing. Soon after, the University Libraries via
OhioLINK entered four additional read and publish agreements between 2022 and
2024. It is understood by the authors of this study that other open access
funding sources from within the University remained equally limited over time,
and that local scholars have traditionally sought external funding sources for
the coverage of any fees related to OA publication of their works.
Commentary on OA
received through the survey’s open responses indicates an opportunity for
enhanced library services to strengthen researchers’ abilities to navigate the
current and forecasted OA publication landscape. This could include
disseminating greater information on its financial implications at the
institutional level, as more APC and non-subscription cost models gain
prominence in the scholarly communications market, as well as increased
guidance on the pre-submission evaluation of journals and the quality of peer
review undertaken. Current predictions indicate that open access will not
result in cost-savings for academic libraries (Hulbert, 2023, p.37). University
Libraries should strategically engage local stakeholders to ensure an open
future is adequately funded under the RCM model.
Responses to Study Participant Recommendations
Many
participants requested improved support for medical students preparing for
licensure examinations, procedural skills, and contemporary practice patterns.
The materials medical students use for studying, specifically reliance on
question banks and non-traditional study tools, changed significantly.
Companies marketed these new products to students, colleges, departments, and
schools but did not offer institutional subscriptions until 2021 (Burk-Rafael,
et al., 2017; O’Hanlon & Laynor, 2019; Shultz & Berryman, 2020; Tackett
et al., 2018). Health science libraries now face the added challenge of
choosing to renew a journal, which faculty and learners would use, or a package
of e-books, which primarily faculty use.
Other department
or program specific requests included purchasing software or products.
Additionally, some participants requested that the University Libraries
communicate collection decisions and updates regarding library renovations via
a department email or newsletter. Participants requested improved full-text
access to the complete portfolios of Nature, Science, Annual Reviews, and other
society journals. They also requested that the University Libraries work with
OhioLINK to offer a broader set of journal subscriptions. Liaisons plan to
review how the University Libraries communicate information and potentially
adjust techniques to improve patron engagement.
Communicating and Marketing Library Services and Collections
The University
Libraries use a variety of marketing strategies to promote services and
online-and-print collections including social media. Despite the University
Libraries’ existing efforts, only five respondents (4.5%) chose social media as
their preferred way of staying informed of the health science library’s
services and changes. Current social media messages focus on students and
learners, which could contribute to minimal following by faculty. The health
science library could spend time crafting social media messages on topics of
interest to the entire University community and of particular interest to
faculty, e.g., Open Access (Fonseca, 2019) and cost-sharing. This takes lots of
time, dedication, and it does not guarantee that faculty will adjust how they
discover changes to the library (Hill, 2015). Survey data confirmed health
science liaisons should spend time reading, crafting messages, and getting
permission to include content of interest to faculty within departmental and
college emails. Making these communication adjustments could improve the
perception and use of the Mulford health science library.
Limitations
This study
describes one university library’s experience. After receiving a study reminder
email, approximately 25 study participants contacted researchers to share that
they had already completed the survey; future teams may want to rethink how
they distribute the data collection tool. A technical glitch resulted in
additional responses to one question. Assuring the anonymity of survey
participants prevented researchers from creating department, program, or
college-specific responses.
Conclusion
The purpose of the study is to uncover inefficiencies in library
operations, clear up misconceptions by both users of library services and
library personnel to avoid the perception of the library as “a conspicuous
source of overhead” (Rogers, 2009, p. 550). Researchers also seek to counteract
negative feelings resulting from how the library gets its budget by providing
an accurate assessment regarding use of library services and collections.
Libraries have much to offer in RCM budgeting, but this hinges on clear
communication. While study participants are generally content with the delivery
of services and level of access to needed resources, they still expect improved
access to journals, full-text articles, and exam materials. Should the fiscal
situation improve, health science liaisons could consult both departments and
the recently updated Clinical Useful Journals list before resubscribing to or
acquiring any journals (Klein-Fedyshin & Ketchum, 2023).
Based upon
open-text responses from participants, a disconnect in communication exists
between the UToledo libraries and the university community. By conducting this
study, the University Libraries have an improved understanding of users’ wants
and needs. Additionally, the libraries now know the information sources patrons
consult to keep up with changes in the college and at The University of Toledo.
The data collected by this study can inform existing communication of library
processes, promotion of open access, and opportunities for cost sharing.
Completion of the Open Educational Resource (OER) certificate, for example,
will improve UToledo’s ability to support creation of
OER materials. Ideally, in the future UToledo could hire a dedicated librarian
to support university wide OER initiatives. It is worth considering the cost
and staff time involved in developing and maintaining any new or existing
initiatives. Libraries would benefit from using local or validated surveys to
regularly assess community needs and the use of services. Such data is
particularly beneficial for libraries striving to establish a firm footing for
anticipated institutional changes.
Acknowledgements
The team would
like to thank our colleagues in the University Libraries for providing candid
feedback and support throughout this process. We also are indebted to Jonathan
Eldredge and Sally Bowler-Hill at the University of New Mexico for their
encouragement, expertise, and support. We also would like to thank all members
of the Health Science faculty, staff, and administrators, who took the time to
participate in our study.
Author Contributions
Margaret A.
Hoogland and Gerald R. Natal*:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology,
Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Robert Wilmott: Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Clare
F. Keating: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing Daisy Caruso: Data curation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
*These authors
contributed equally to the project and serve as co-first authors.
References
Adams, E. M. (1997). Rationality in the academy: Why responsibility
center budgeting is a wrong step down the wrong road. Change, 29, 58-61.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389709602338
Agostino, D. (1993). The impact of responsibility center management on
communications departments. Journal of the Association for Communication
Administration, 22(1), 23 –26. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/jaca/vol22/iss1/4/
Allen, N. (2018). 1 billion in savings through open educational
resources. SPARC News. https://sparcopen.org/news/2018/1-billion-in-savings-through-open-educational-resources/
Allen, L., Baker, N., Wilson, J., Creamer, K., & Consiglio, D.
(2013). Analyzing the MISO data: Broader perspectives on library and computing
trends. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(2),
129–138. https://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B82G7V
Baker, N., Furlong, K., Consiglio, D., Holbert, G.L., Milberg, C.,
Reynolds, K., & Wilson, J. (2018). Demonstrating the value of “library as
place” with the MISO survey. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 19(2),
111–120. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PMM-01-2018-0004
Bakker, C.J. An Introduction to Statistics for Librarians (Part One):
Types of Data. Hypothesis: Research Journal for Health Information
Professionals, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.18060/26428
Bliss, T. J., Hilton, J., Wiley, D., & Thanos, K. (2013). The cost
and quality of open textbooks: Perceptions of community college faculty and
students. First Monday, 18(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i1.3972
Bradley, K., Shaw, D. R., Lee, B., Symons, J., & Hernandez, G.
(2023). eBooks: A novel approach to education and training offering savings and
resources. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 54(9),
394–397. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20230816-04
Bridgeman M. (2021). The Rutgers University Libraries Open and
Affordable Textbook (OAT) Program. Medical Reference Services Quarterly,
40(3), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2021.1945864
Burk-Rafel, J., Santen, S. A., & Purkiss, J. (2017). Study behaviors
and USMLE Step 1 performance: Implications of a student self-directed parallel
curriculum. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American
Medical Colleges, 92(11S), Association of American Medical Colleges,
Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Research in Medical Education
Sessions), S67–S74. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001916
Carlson, S. (2015). Colleges 'unleash the deans' with decentralized
budgets. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(22), A4-A6.
Cuillier, C., & Stoffle, C. J. (2011). Finding alternative sources of revenue. Journal of Library
Administration, 51(7-8), 777-809. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.601276
Curry, J. R., Laws, A. L., & Strauss, J. C. (2013). Responsibility
Center Management: A guide to balancing academic entrepreneurship with fiscal
responsibility. National Association of College and University Business
Officers.
Deering, D., & Lang, D. W. (2017). Responsibility center budgeting
and management "lite" in university finance. Planning for Higher
Education, 45(3), 94-109.
Deering, D., & Sá, C. (2018). Do corporate management tools
inevitably corrupt the soul of the university? Evidence from the implementation
of responsibility center budgeting. Tertiary Education &
Management, 24(2), 115-127. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1398779
De Groote, S. L., Aksu Dunya, B., Scoulas, J. M.,
& Case, M. M. (2020). Research productivity and
its relationship to library collections. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 15(4), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29736
DeLancey, L., & deVries, S. (2023). The impact of Responsibility
Center Management on academic libraries: An exploratory study. Portal:
Libraries & the Academy, 23(1), 7-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2023.0005
Delimont N., Turtle E. C., Bennett A., Adhikari K., & Lindshield B.
L. (2016). University students and faculty have positive perceptions of
open/alternative resources and their utilization in a textbook replacement
initiative. Research in Learning Technology, 24, 29920. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.29920
Engelbrecht, J. (2004). The changing of the guard, or: Moving from print
to "e" with a new financial model. IATUL Annual Conference
Proceedings, 14, 1.
Everall, K., & Logan, J. (2017). A mixed methods approach to
iterative service design of an in-person reference service point. Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 12(4), 178–185. https://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B87Q2X
Fethke, G. C., & Policano, A. J. (2019, 01/01/). Centralized (CAM)
versus decentralized budgeting (RCM) approaches in implementing public
university strategy. Journal of Education Finance, 45(2), 172-197.
Fonseca, C. (2019). Amplify your impact: The insta-story: A new frontier
for marking and engagement at the Sonoma state university library. Reference
& User Services Quarterly, 58(4), 219. https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.58.4.7148
Giannopoulos, E., Snow, M., Manley, M., McEwan, K., Stechkevich, A.,
Giuliani, M. E., & Papadakos, J. (2021). Identifying gaps in consumer
health library collections: A retrospective review. Journal of the Medical
Library Association, 109(4), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.895
Gorring, H., Duffy, D., Forde, A., Irving, D., Morgan, K., &
Nicholas, K. (2023). How research into healthcare staff use and non-use of
e-books led to planning a joint approach to e-book policy and practice across
UK and Ireland healthcare libraries. Health Information and Libraries
Journal, 40(1), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12469
Hearn, J. C., Lewis, D. R., Kallsen, L., Holdsworth, J. M., & Jones,
L. M. (2006). "Incentives for managed growth": A case study of
incentives-based planning and budgeting in a large public research university. The
Journal of Higher Education, 77(2), 286-316.
Hill, K. (2015). Usage of social media in the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill health science library: A case study. UNC Chapel
Hill Theses, MP4205.
Hulbert, I. G. (2023, March 30). US Library Survey 2022:
Navigating the New Normal. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.318642
Huron Consulting Group. (2021). Huron Consulting report to the deans.
https://utaaup.com/huron-consulting-report-to-the-deans/
Jaquette, O., Kramer, D. A., & Curs, B. R. (2018).
Growing the pie? The effect of responsibility center
management on tuition revenue. Journal of Higher Education, 89(5),
637-676. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1434276
Kent State University. (n.d.). Comparative RCM models. Retrieved
May 7 from https://www.kent.edu/budget/comparative-rcm-models
Kirschner, J., Monnin, J., & Andresen, C. (2023). Gaining ground:
OER at 3 health sciences institutions. Hypothesis: Research Journal for
Health Information Professionals, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.18060/27410
Klein-Fedyshin, M., & Ketchum, A. M. (2023). PubMed's core clinical
journals filter: Redesigned for contemporary clinical impact and utility. Journal
of the Medical Library Association, 111(3), 665–676. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1631
Lierman, A. (2021). Textbook alternative incentive programs at U.S.
universities: A review of the literature. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 15(4), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29758
Linn, M. (2007). Budget systems used in allocating resources to
libraries. Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 20(1), 20-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08880450710747425
Lopez, E., Bass, M.B., Danquah, L.E. (2022). Trends in…medical library
essential services. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 41(1), 95-107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2022.2021039
Myers, G. M. (2019). Responsibility center budgeting as a mechanism to
deal with academic moral hazard. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 49(3),
13-23. https://dx.doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v49i3.188491
Neal, J. G., & Smith, L. (1995). Responsibility center management
and the university library. The Bottom Line, 8(4), 17-20. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb025455
O’Hanlon, R. & Laynor, G. (2019). Responding to a new generation of
proprietary study resources in medical education [commentary]. Journal of
the Medical Library Association, 107(2), 251-257. https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.619
Priest, D., Becker, W., Hossler, D., & St. John, E. (2002). Incentive-based
budgeting systems in public universities. Edward Elgar.
Riggs, D. E. (1997). What's in store for academic libraries? Leadership
and management issues. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(1), 3. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(97)90065-3
Rogers, C. (2009). There is always tomorrow? Libraries on the edge. Journal
of Library Administration, 49(5), 545-558. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930820903090938
Rutherford, A., & Rabovsky, T. (2018). Does the motivation for
market‐based reform matter? The case of responsibility‐centered management. Public
Administration Review, 78(4), 626-639. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/puar.12884
Rutner, J. & Self, J. (2013). Still bound for disappointment?
Another look at faculty and library journal collections. Evidence Based
Library and Information Practice, 8(2), 114-128. https://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8XS5Z
Scoulas, J.M., & De Groote, S., L. (2020). University students’ changing library needs and use: A comparison of
2016 and 2018 surveys. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 15(1),
59-89. https://dx.doi.org/10.18438/eblip29621
Shultz, M., & Berryman, D.R. (2020). Collection practices for
nontraditional online resources among academic health sciences libraries. Journal
of the Medical Library Association, 108(2), 253-261. https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.791
Sugrim S., Schimming L., & Halevi, G. (2019). Identifying e-books
authored by faculty: A method for scoping the digital collection and curating a
list. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(1), 103-107. https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.514
Tackett S., Slinn K., Marshall T., Gaglani, S., Waldman, V., & Desai
R. (2018). Medical education videos for the world: An analysis of viewing
patterns for a YouTube channel. Academic Medicine, 93(8), 1150-1156. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002118
Watson, C. E., Domizi, D. P., & Clouser, S. A. (2017). Student and
faculty perceptions of OpenStax in high enrollment courses. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2462
Whalen, E. L. (1991). Responsibility center budgeting: An approach to
decentralized management for
institutions of higher education. Indiana University Press.
Appendix
Data Collection
Instrument Title: Health Science Campus Library Collections and Electronic
Resources Survey
Mandatory Question:
University Libraries
3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1061
Toledo, Ohio 43614
Phone # 419-383-4214
ADULT RESEARCH SUBJECT - INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Health Science Campus Library Collections and Electronic Resources
Survey
Principal Investigator:
Margaret Hoogland, Associate Professor and Clinical Medical Librarian,
419-
383-4214
Other Investigators:
R. Derek Wilmott, Assistant Professor and Acquisitions and Collection
Management Librarian, 419-530-7984
Gerald Natal, Associate Professor and Health Human Services Librarian,
419-530-4227
Purpose: You are invited to participate in the research project entitled
”Health Science Campus Library Collections and Electronic Resources Survey,”
which is being conducted at The University of Toledo under the direction of
Gerald Natal, Derek Wilmott, and Margaret Hoogland. The purpose of this study
is to help the research team better understand how members of The University of
Toledo Health Science Campus community access and use of the Mulford Library
resources (e.g., e-books, e-journals, databases, etc.).
Description of Procedures: This research study will take place online in
the AirTable platform. On the landing page of the online survey, you will be
asked to read the IRB approved consent. If you select yes, you will see
questions asking how you access articles and use Mulford Library Services. Then
you will be asked to provide input on how the University Libraries communicate
with you. Upon completing the last question, the survey will close and your
commitment concludes. Estimated time from start-to-finish is 15 minutes.
Potential Risks: You may experience minimal discomfort as you reflect
upon and share your experiences about working and interacting with the Mulford
Library during their time at The University of Toledo. Although a breach in
confidentiality is possible with any research study, Gerald Natal, Derek Wilmott,
and Margaret Hoogland will be taking every possible precaution to minimize this
from happening.
Potential Benefits: You receive no direct benefits from completing this
survey. The field of library and information science may benefit from this
research by reviewing collected data and rethinking how libraries allocate
funding and time to existing services and resources. Additionally, responses
might inspire the study team to develop or to modify existing services. Other
fields may also benefit by learning about the results of this research.
Confidentiality: Collected data will be stored in a password protected
location available only to members of the study team. To assist with protecting
your confidentiality, please do not include identifying information in any of
the open response questions.
Voluntary Participation: The information collected from you may be
de-identified and used for future research purposes. As a reminder, your
participation in this research is voluntary. Your refusal to participate in
this study will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are
otherwise entitled and will not affect your relationship with The University of
Toledo, any of your classes, Mulford Library, or the University Libraries. You
may skip any questions that you may be uncomfortable answering. In addition, you
may discontinue participation at any time without any penalty or loss of
benefits.
Contact Information: If you have any questions at any time before,
during, or after your participation please contact a member of the research
team: Gerald Natal (419-530-4227), Derek Wilmott (419-530- 7984), or Margaret
Hoogland (419-383-4214). If you have questions beyond those answered by the
research team or your rights as a research subject or research-related
injuries, the Chairperson of the SBE Institutional Review Board may be
contacted through the Human Research Protection Program on the main campus at
(419) 530-6167.
CONSENT SECTION – Please read carefully
You are making a decision whether or not to participate in this research
study. By clicking yes, you indicate that you have read the information
provided above, you have had all your questions answered, and you have decided
to take part in this research. You may take as much time as necessary to think
it over.
By participating in this research, you confirm that you are at least 18
years old.
Study Number: 301563-UT
Exemption Granted: 10/14/2022
1. I have been employed at The University of Toledo for________. (Single Select)
A.
0-3 years
B.
4-6 years
C.
7-10 years
D.
11-15 years
E.
16+ years
2. My current role at The University of Toledo is (Single Select):
A.
Department Head
B.
Dean
C.
Staff Member (e.g., Executive Assistant,
Research/Education Coordinator, etc.)
D.
Faculty Member
2a. If the library gave you lead time (e.g., up to 3 months in advance
of the deadline), would your department or college consider contributing funds
to maintain or obtain a new print or electronic subscription? (Single Select)
A.
No – we have no interest in doing this.
B.
Maybe – we need more than 3 months to consider
entering into such an agreement.
C.
Yes
D.
Other
2b. If your option is not listed, please describe without using
identifying information. (open response)
2c. I am in a ______ position. (Single Select)
A.
Tenure Eligible
B.
Tenure Track
C.
Tenured
D.
Not Applicable
4. Electronic Journals by Specialty (rating)
5. The Speed of interlibrary Loan (rating)
6. Literature Searches (rating)
7. Open Education Resource (e.g., promotion, curation, marketing, etc.) (rating)
8. What other programs or
services would you like the Mulford Library to investigate for the Health
Science Campus Community? (open response)
9. How do you obtain journal articles? Please select all that apply. (multiple response)
9a. If you have a different way of accessing full-text articles, please
consider sharing the steps with us. As a reminder, please do not include
identifying information in your response. (open response)
10. An article is not immediately available in full text. From the
statements below, please indicate what you would do next______ (single select)
10a. If you have a different process that is not described above, please
consider sharing the steps with us. As a reminder, please do not include
identifying information in your response. (open response)
11. When you have a research or other library related question(s), what
do you do? (single select)
12. Open Access publishing makes journal articles immediately available
and the “cost” to publish (e.g., Article Purchasing Charge) varies by journal
and article type. Which of the following statements best defines your view of
Open Access publishing? (single select)
13. What is your preferred way to keep up with the Mulford Library? (single select)
14. What information would you like to see in a University Libraries
Annual Report? (multiple select)
15. In your opinion, how could the Mulford Library provide better
support (e.g., teaching, research, etc.)? (open response)
16. What else would you like to share with us? (open response)