June Lesteand Inf

DanDirector, ScStudies, Un

The Journal of

A Statewide Information Databases Program:What Difference Does It Make toAcademic Libraries?

by June Lester and Danny P. Wallace

Available online 10 April 2004

The Oklahoma Department ofLibraries (ODL) launched

Oklahoma’s statewide databaseprogram in 1997. For the state’sacademic libraries, the programextended access to information,

increased database use, andfostered positive relationships

among ODL, academiclibraries, and Oklahoma StateRegents for Higher Education

(OSRHE), creating a morepromising environment for

statewide cooperation.

r is Professor, School of Libraryormation Studies, University ofOklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

<jlester@ou.edu>;ny P. Wallace is Professor andhool of Library and Informationiversity of Oklahoma, Norman,OK, USA <dwallace@ou.edu>.

Academic Librarianship, Volume 30, N

THE CHALLENGE: FUNDING PUBLIC

ACCESS DATABASES

Providing equitable access to digital sour-ces of information has been an issue sinceonline database systems became commer-cially available in the 1970s. Althoughthe benefits of online databases wereimmediately recognized by many librar-ians, integration of database services intothe service policies and operations oflibraries was impeded by perceptions ofthe difficulty of using database systemsand by the costs associated with provid-ing database services.1 The decision toprovide online database services wascompounded by the complex connecttime and record access charges that werethe dominant cost model for early onlineservices.2 Many libraries, academic li-braries in particular, initially resolvedthe question of how to fund access todatabases by imposing fees. A 1981 studyconducted by the American Library As-sociation revealed that 72 percent oflibraries offering online services chargedfees for their use.3 The central limitationof and objection to user fees for libraryservices is ‘‘that such fees confer greateraccess to information upon some patronsthan upon others solely on the basis ofthe ability to pay.’’4 The May 1986 issueof College and Research Libraries wasmostly devoted to the discussion of fi-nancing online services through the mate-rials budget versus imposition of userfees.5 The debate in the literature regard-ing the imposition of fees was active andoccasionally fierce and continued overthe course of nearly two decades, withdiscussions of alternatives to fees con-tinuing through the beginning of thetwenty-first century.6 CD-ROM and lo-cally mounted databases constituted a

umber 3, pages 179–192

partial solution in some library environ-ments but presented cost barriers formany libraries.7 By the early 1990s,many academic libraries were offeringdatabase access through a mixture ofCD-ROM, locally mounted databasesaccessed through an OPAC, and remotefee-based services.8 The debate over feesabated somewhat as online services beganoffering flat-fee pricing in the 1990s, butonline database access still remained be-yond the reach of many libraries.9

As early as 1986, Haar suggested thatthe solution to providing public access todatabase services was to form a consortiumapproach in which costs and decisionswere shared among participating librar-ies.10 This idea came to fruition in theservices offered by such consortia as SOL-INET, the AlabamaVirtual Library, and theTexas Library Connection (TLC).11

Bolt argued in 1991 that the leadershiprole for providing access to online databa-ses should come from state libraries. Boltpresented ‘‘five reasons why statewide ef-forts substantially enhance productivity:’’

First, a statewide perspective best enhances

local efforts. It allows local businesses to take

advantage of activity outside of their local

communities. Second, where this information

exists on a statewide basis, it is often easier

to ‘‘cut a deal,’’ to establish a cooperative

arrangement with the producer of a statewide

database. Third, such statewide arrangements

allow for efficient distribution of the databases

and for training of librarians to deliver the

service. Fourth, statewide availability presents

funding options ranging from full state sub-

sidy to shared subscription costs for parti-

cipating libraries. And finally, a statewide

network for delivering . . . information

through libraries increases the overall posi-

tive image of all libraries instead of just the

superior service of only one library.12

May 2004 179

Early adopters of the statewide ap-proach to supporting online database serv-ices include the Colorado Alliance ofResearch Libraries (CARL), which beganproviding access to Information AccessCorporation databases in 1989, and theNorth Carolina Information Network(NCIN).

THE ROLE OF THE LIBRARY SERVICESAND TECHNOLOGY ACT IN

SUPPORTING DATABASE ACCESS

The Library Services and TechnologyAct (LSTA), authorized in 1996 as asection of the Museum and Library Serv-ices Act, specifically targets collaborativeapproaches to using technology to pro-vide library services through its programgoals, which are to

� establish or enhance electronic link-ages among or between libraries;

� link libraries electronically with educa-tional, social, or information services;

� help libraries access informationthrough electronic networks;

� encourage libraries in different areasand different types of libraries toestablish consortia and share resources;

� pay costs for libraries to acquire orshare computer systems and telecom-munications technologies; and

� target library and information servicesto persons who have difficulty using alibrary and to underserved urban andrural communities.

The goals of LSTA have been addressedby statewide database initiatives in manystates. Of the states that have a statewidedatabase program, not all include all typesof libraries, not all are supported withoutsome matching funds from participatinglibraries, and not all use or have used LSTAfunds to provide a substantial portion of thesupport of the program. According to onesource, there are thirty states with state-wide databases; the current number ismuch higher, although not all types oflibraries have the same access to the state-wide databases provided through the statelibrary.13 Some examples of database proj-ects funded at least in part with LSTAfunds are listed here.

� New York used LSTA funds to estab-lish EmpireLink, a project that providesaccess to full-text databases covering

180 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

general reference, newspapers, health,business, and resources for junior highand middle-school students.14

� Connecticut used LSTA money tosupport full-text database access forlibraries and public high schools in aproject that served as the model for thenow state-supported iCONN, the Con-necticut Digital Library.15

� Washington has used LSTA fundingtogether with local matching fundsfrom participating libraries to fund theWashington Statewide Database Li-censing Project. The LSTA moneyprovides approximately half of thesupport for the program, which isavailable to all nonprofit libraries.16

� AccessMichigan, now folded into theMichigan eLibrary, was begun by theLibrary of Michigan with LSTA fundsto provide access statewide to elec-tronic databases.17

� The pilot project for DISCUS, theSouth Carolina Virtual Library thatprovides statewide access to electronicdatabases from all public, academic,and school libraries in the state, wasfunded with LSTA money. DISCUScontinues to have some LSTA support,although the primary support is fromthe state.18

� The Tennessee Electronic Library,providing statewide access to data-bases for all nonprofit libraries in thestate, was established and is supportedthrough use of LSTA funds.19

� Wisconsin used LSTA funds for a dem-onstration project in 1998 and 1999 toprovide access to full-text electronicdatabases for all types of libraries andhome access to all residents of the statewith Internet capability. The project,known as Badgerlink, has continuedwith state funding.20

� Databases for Alaskans, now fundedby the state legislature and providingstatewide access to electronic data-bases from libraries and homes, wasbegun with LSTA funding.21

� The Arkansas State Library uses LSTAfunds to support Traveler, a projectgiving online access to full-text data-bases for all types of libraries in thestate.22

� The Ohio Public Library InformationNetwork (OPLIN), the Ohio Library

and Information Network (Ohio-LINK), and INFOhio are all fundedin part by LSTA support via the OhioState Library.23

USE AND IMPACT OF DATABASE

SERVICES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

There have been few studies of the rolesand benefits of online database services inacademic libraries. A survey conducted in1984 explored availability of databaseservices in a sample of five hundred col-lege and university libraries, characteris-tics of the search services provided,approaches to service evaluation, and re-spondent perceptions of future trends.24 A1994 survey of 241 small academic librar-ies found that almost all offered some formof database services, primarily in the formof CD-ROM, and that 14.5 percent re-ceived some funding from a consortiumof some kind.25 No studies of the impact ofa statewide database program were foundin the published literature, although Gard-ner conducted a study of statewide pro-grams related to bibliographic databasesused for cataloging and resource sharingthat addressed issues of impact, strengths,and weaknesses.26

‘‘No studies of the impactof a statewide database

program were found in thepublished literature. . .’’

THE OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE

DATABASE SURVEY: BACKGROUND

In 1997, using a combination of state le-gislature appropriated funds and federalLSTA funding, the Oklahoma Departmentof Libraries (ODL, Oklahoma’s state li-brary) launched Oklahoma’s first state-wide information database program. Theneed for statewide support for databaseservices for Oklahoma libraries had beenofficially recognized the previous year: anODL Steering Committee, involved in amultifaceted planning process for deter-mining new directions for the agency andthe development of a new strategic plan,recommended addressing equity of ac-cess, and an explicit statement of supportfor a statewide database license was in-cluded in the new ODL strategic plan.27

To fund this program, an amendment tothe Fiscal Year 1996 Library Services and

Table 1Distribution of Oklahoma Academic Libraries by Level of Institution

Vocational–TechnicalInstitutions

Higher EducationCenters

Two-Year CollegesFour-Year Collegesor Universities

Public Private Public Private

43 2 13 1 13 13

Construction Act recommended budgetproposal for ODL included US$125,000to support a statewide license for full-textmagazine and journal databases.28 TheOklahoma state legislature appropriatedUS$125,000 for a statewide license forfull-text databases for FY 1997. An initialsite license for FirstSearch database serv-ices was approved through an agreementwith the Oklahoma State Regents forHigher Education (OSRHE) for April1997 through April 1998, with databaseservices for February and March 1997provided at no charge. Access was pro-vided through OneNet, Oklahoma’s tele-communications and information networkfor education and government. Totalfunding for the initial site license includedUS$125,000 in state funding andUS$200,000 in LSCA funding.29 Train-ing of library staff in use of the databasesbegan in April 1997.30

The site license was renewed and ex-panded in 1998 with funds totalingUS$575,000, including US$325,000 fromthe state (the increase in state funds camethrough the FY 1998 budget request) andUS$250,000 from LSTA funds.31 The ex-panded site license agreement includedboth FirstSearch and SearchBank (re-named InfoTrac in 1999) databases. Anadditional US$75,000 was allocated bythe state in 2000 to address database costincreases.32 The FY 2002 ODL budgetrequest included US$750,000 for state-wide database licenses.33 In FY 2002, thefunding for the statewide databases pro-gram was approximately 65 percent(US$675,000) from money appropriatedby the state legislature, with the remaining35 percent (US$368,016) from LSTAfunding. Over the four fiscal years,1998–2001, The Statewide DatabasesProgram was the project receiving thelargest support from LSTA funds (17.6percent of the total), with the exceptionof funding of centralized consulting andadministrative salaries.

As part of an evaluation of the use ofLSTA funds in Oklahoma during 1997/1998–2000/2001, an in-depth analysis ofthe Statewide Information Databases Pro-gram was conducted. This analysis fo-cused on

� issues of access to databases providedvia the statewide site license;

� efforts by libraries to promote use ofthe databases and educate patrons indatabase use;

� patron demand for the databases;

� awareness of sources of funding forthe database program;

� impact of the database program onlocal funding allocation;

� staff training in database use; and

� the overall impact of the statewidedatabase program on database use.

Data for the evaluation were gatheredin a mail survey, using four separatequestionnaires for

1. public libraries;

2. academic libraries;

3. special libraries; and

4. elementary and secondary school li-brary media centers.

The target population for distributionof the survey questionnaires was thoselibraries identified as subscribers to thestatewide database program site license.Print questionnaires were distributed toall subscribing public, academic, andspecial libraries and to a random sampleof approximately one-third of the parti-cipating school library media centers.Following initial analysis of the data,follow-up focus groups were held witheach type of library to explore responsesand assist with interpretation of the find-ings. This article focuses on what waslearned regarding the impact of the data-base program on the academic librariesof the state.

ENVIRONMENT OF OKLAHOMA

ACADEMIC LIBRARIES AND THE

STATEWIDE DATABASE PROGRAM

Oklahoma is a largely rural state with apopulation, according to the 2000 census,of 3,450,654. The state covers 69,919square miles, for an average populationdensity of 49 per square mile. The largestcities are Oklahoma City (population506,132), Tulsa (393,049), Norman(95,694), and Lawton (92,757). Oklahoma

has the second largest Native Americanpopulation in the United States, with thir-ty-two of the seventy-seven counties in thestate having a Native American populationof 10 percent or higher. Racial composi-tion of the state as a whole is 76.2 percentWhite, 7.9 percent Native American, 7.6percent African American, 1.4 percentAsian, 2.5 percent other, and 4.5 percentmultiracial. The Hispanic or Latino popu-lation is 5.2 percent. The state has 13.2percent of its population sixty-five andover and 25.9 percent under eighteen, bothhigher than the nation as a whole. Educa-tion levels are below the national norms:79.8 percent of the population are high-school graduates or higher and 20.4 per-cent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher.Poverty levels are higher than nationalaverages: 14.4 percent are below the pov-erty level.34

At the beginning of the time periodcovered in this study, there were eighty-five academic libraries in the state, dis-tributed as shown in Table 1.

While there is more concentration ofacademic libraries is the two largest cites,a number of the libraries are in rural areasof populations below 10,000 and approx-imately one-third are in locations of under25,000. Of the eighty-five libraries, sev-enty were participants in the statewidedatabase program at the time of the study.Table 2 provides a breakdown of partici-pating academic libraries.

Before the implementation of the state-wide database program, ODL had limitedinteraction with academic libraries of thestate through the Oklahoma Library Tech-nology Network (OLTN) Online Catalogand the Oklahoma Union List of Serials(OKULS) project. There were no otherservices funded by or through ODL thatdirectly provided assistance to academiclibraries.

Although there were similar projects inother states and alternative models fol-lowed in some states, the central questionboth the state library and Oklahoma aca-demic libraries were interested in answer-ing was what difference, if any, theprovision of a statewide database program

May 2004 181

Table 2Institution Type or Level of

Participating Libraries

Public Private Total

Vocational–

Technical

Institution

12 12

Higher Education

Center

2 2

Two-Year Degree 18 18

Four-Year Degree 4 8 12

Graduate Degree 16 10 26

Total 52 18 70

was making in the academic libraries ofthe state.

Table 3Institution Type or Level of Responding Libraries

Public Private Total

Type of InstitutionNumber

Responding PercentNumber

Responding PercentNumber

Responding Percent

Vocational–Technical

Institution

3 25 3 25

Higher Education Center 1 50 1 50

Two-Year Degree 11 61 11 61

Four-Year Degree 4 100 5 62 9 75

Graduate Degree 12 75 7 70 19 73

Total 31 60 12 67 43 61

‘‘. . .the central question. . .was what difference, if any,the provision of a statewide

database program wasmaking in the academiclibraries of the state.’’

QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES

The academic libraries questionnaire wasdistributed to seventy libraries. Usableresponses were received from forty-three,a response rate of 61.43 percent, includinglibraries in both public and private institu-tions and at a variety of degree levels(Table 3).

The questions addressed the followingareas (the full questionnaire is in AppendixA):

� Questions 1–5 asked for demographicdata, including the number of employ-ees of the library, the year in which thelibrary initially registered for the State-wide Information Databases, the size ofthe library’s service population, thenature of the library’s Internet connec-tion, the number of workstations avail-able for patron use, and whether homeor office access is provided to librarypatrons.

� Questions 6–8 addressed issues ofpromotion of the Statewide Informa-tion Database program, approaches topatron education, and the impact of thedatabases on patron demand for staffassistance.

� Questions 10–12 addressed assess-ment of respondent knowledge of the

182 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

funding base for the Statewide Infor-mation Databases Program and theimpact of the program on local fundallocation.

� Questions 14 and 15 addressed thenumber of staff who had receivedtraining in the use of the StatewideInformation Databases and the numberof staff who use the databases on aregular basis.

� Questions 16 and 17 asked respondentsto rate their libraries’ rate of use ofdatabases before and after registeringfor the Statewide Information Databaseprogram.

� Question 18 provided a grid in whichrespondents were asked to assess eachof the databases provided by the State-wide Information Database program interms of forms of use before registeringfor the Statewide Information Databaseprogram, volume of use before theStatewide Information Database pro-gram, volume of use after registeringfor the Statewide Information Databaseprogram, and the usefulness of thedatabase.

� Question 19 asked respondents toidentify one additional database thatshould be added to the program iffunding were available.

� Questions 20–37 were designed toelicit respondent perceptions of variousaspects of the Statewide InformationDatabase program, including use byfaculty, students, and administrators;affect on library image; and trainingneeds.

� Questions 38 and 39 were open-endedquestions asking for comment on the

greatest benefit and greatest problemof the program.

IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM ON ACCESS

TO INFORMATION

For most of the libraries in Oklahoma, allof which are eligible to participate in theStatewide Information Databases Pro-gram, this LSTA- and state-funded projectprovided initial access to online databases.Like libraries of all types in Oklahoma, theacademic libraries of the state tend to besmall, with limited collections and limitedstaff. The median reported volume countof the collection was 65,509; the medianstaff size was 11; and the median numberof students enrolled in the institutionserved by the library was 1716. Althoughsome of the larger academic libraries ofthe state had prior access to a variety ofonline information databases, the majorityof the respondents either had access to alimited number of databases or no accessat all; 21 percent of the respondents madeno use of databases before registering forthe program. The databases that were mostfrequently available, either in CD-ROM oronline, before the implementation of theprogram are shown in Table 4.

‘‘For academic libraries. . .the opportunity to

participate in the statewideprogram was readily

embraced. . .’’

For academic libraries as a whole, theopportunity to participate in the statewideprogram was readily embraced: more than

Table 6Databases Considered Most

Important (Essential or Useful)After Joining Statewide

Information Databases Program

Database

Percent ofLibraries

Judging Essentialor Useful

Expanded Academic

ASAP

95

WorldCat 92.5

ERIC 91

Books in Print 88

General Business

File ASAP

87

General Reference

Center

86

Health Reference

Center Academic

84

MEDLINE 80

Table 4Most Frequently Available

Databases Prior to StatewideInformation Databases Program

Database

Percent ofLibraries

with Access

ERIC 63

MEDLINE 60

Books in Print 51

WorldCat 51

GPO Monthly Catalog 36

Expanded Academic ASAP 35

Union List of Periodicals 32.5

70 percent of the respondents participatingjoined in the first year. At the time of theevaluation, 61 percent reported heavy useof databases, compared to 19 percent be-fore registering for the program. Afterjoining the program, all responding librar-ies reported database use at some level,with 90.6 percent reporting heavy or mod-erate use, an increase of 37.1 percentagepoints from the use before the program.The databases that were most used byrespondents (either heavy or moderateuse) are shown in Table 5.

Respondents were asked to assess da-tabase importance as well as volume ofuse. Interestingly, the assessment of theimportance of the databases did not fol-low the same pattern, as shown in Table 6.

Two possible interpretations of thedifferences are that some of the databasesare considered very important to the func-tioning of the library even if there is nofrequent use by patrons (WorldCat and

Table 5Databases Most Used (Heavy orModerate Use) After Joining

Statewide InformationDatabases Program

Database

Percent ofLibraries with

Heavy orModerate Use

ERIC 74

Expanded Academic ASAP 68

Books in Print 65

General Reference Center 65

Health Reference Center

Academic

65

General Business File ASAP 64

Table 7Perception of Sources of FundingStatewide Information Databases

Program

Source of Funds

LibrariesIdentifying asFunding Source

Number Percent

ODL 33 77

OSRHE 22 51

State Legislature 18 42

LSTA 4 9

Books in Print), and that perceived im-portance to service outweighs actual usesince the potential for service is enhanced.

An overwhelming majority of respond-ents (85 percent) strongly agreed oragreed with the statement that access tothe databases is used by faculty to supportinstruction and to support their research(77.5 percent). Student use was assessedeven more strongly: 97.5 percent stronglyagreed or agreed that students were usingthe databases to strengthen class assign-ments. The same percentage assessed thedatabases as having improved the qualityof student learning.

PERCEPTIONS OF THE STATEWIDE

INFORMATION DATABASE PROGRAM

The items in the questionnaire designed toelicit respondent perceptions of variousaspects of the Statewide Information Da-tabase program revealed a very positiveassessment of the program. Access to thedatabases was viewed as enhancing thepublic image of the library by 97.6 percentof the respondents; 90.5 percent ascribedan enhancement of the perception of thelibrary by decision makers to the program.The Statewide Information Database pro-gram was considered an essential serviceby 95.2 percent, and 88 percent associatedan increase in overall library use with theprogram. The results suggested that theStatewide Information Database programplays at least a limited role in support ofinstitutional decision making: 44.7 percentof respondents agreed with the statement‘‘Institution administrators use the State-wide Information Databases to supporttheir planning and decision making.’’

One particularly striking aspect of per-ceptions of the program was the generallack of understanding of how the programis funded. As reviewed above, funding forthe Statewide Information Databases isprovided through a combination of allo-cations from the state legislature and sup-port from the LSTA funds, which areadministered by the ODL. The OSRHEplays an administrative role but providesno funding for the program. Although theOSHRE acts as fiscal agent for the con-tract, all funds come through the ODL.While a distinct majority of respondentsrecognized the role of ODL in funding theprogram, only a very small minority ex-plicitly identified the role of LSTA. Thecontribution of the Oklahoma state legis-lature was recognized by less than half,while the OSRHE was identified as afunding source by more than half of therespondents (Table 7).

This lack of knowledge about fundingsources was pursued with the academiclibraries focus group. The focus group wascomposed of members of the OklahomaCouncil of Academic Library Directors,who include directors of libraries of bothpublic and private higher education insti-tutions. Those participating attributed theirmisunderstandings to several factors:

� Accurate information on the costs andsources of funding is not clearlyexplained and easily obtained.

� The focus on expressing thanks to thestate legislators for their support andthe request for additional state fundingthat comes from participation in theOklahoma Library Association’sLegislative Day emphasize the state

May 2004 183

Table 9Methods of Instruction in Use of

Databases

Method

Numberof Libraries

Using

Percentageof Libraries

Using

One-on-One

Sessions

38 88

User Training

Sessions

35 81

Handouts 27 63

Web Pages 17 39.5

portion of the funding, without, formost librarians, a comparable focus onthanking members of the congres-sional delegation.

� The role of the Oklahoma StateRegents of Higher Education as fiscalagent for the database contracts adds tothe confusion.

� The database program is the firstsubstantial use of federal funds byODL to support academic libraryservices, and there is no prior experi-ence with the use of federal fundsadministered through ODL for thebenefit of academic libraries.

IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM ON LOCAL

LIBRARY BUDGETS

Of all the types of libraries participating inthe program, academic libraries reportedthe highest incidence of reallocation offunds previously expended on access todatabases. The most prevalent use of thereallocated money was to provide accessto additional databases (thirty-two librar-ies), with the next most frequent use beingpurchase of additional print resources (tenlibraries). As was the case with the othertypes of libraries, however, only a mini-mal number (5 percent) reported receivingadditional funding from their institutionor other sources as a result of the databaseprogram.

IMPACT ON LIBRARY OPERATIONS

One aspect of the study sought to deter-mine how libraries were promoting theavailability of the databases, how userinstruction was being provided, and whatimpact the databases were having on pa-tron demand for staff assistance. Academ-

Table 8Methods for Promotion of

Databases

Method

Numberof

Libraries

Percentageof

Libraries

ibliographic

Instruction

35 81

ibrary Web Pages 34 79

romotion to Faculty 29 67

ocal Newspaper,

Radio, and TV

19 44

tudent Media 19 44

ignage 17 39.5

Table 10Staff Training in Use of Databases

Provider orLocation

Numberof Libraries

Using

Percentageof Libraries

Using

In-House Training 23 53

ODL, Delivered

at Library Site

13 30

Workshops at

ODL

12 28

ODL, Delivered

Elsewhere

3 7

B

L

P

L

S

S

184 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

ic libraries used a variety of approaches topromoting the databases. The most preva-lent was through bibliographic instruction,followed closely by promotion through thelibrary’s Web pages. Other frequent meansof promotion included promotion to fac-ulty of the institution; use of local news-paper, radio, and TV; and use of studentmedia and signage (Table 8).

In teaching users how to access thedatabases, one-on-one sessions with userswere most prevalent, followed by trainingsessions. Handouts and Web pages werethe other most often used means of in-struction (Table 9).

Interestingly, in all types of libraries,one-on-one sessions were the most fre-quent mode of instruction used. In gener-al, the academic libraries considered theirpatrons competent users of the databasesin the program: 79 percent either stronglyagreed or agreed that this was the case. Incomments written on the questionnaires,academic libraries less frequently notedconcern for additional training than wasthe case for other types, which the focusgroup participants interpreted as resultingfrom the longer period of experience withdatabases in academic libraries.

The addition of access to the databaseshas had some impact on demand for staffassistance, but not in all libraries. While58 percent reported an increase, 32.5 per-cent had observed no change and 9 percentactually saw a decrease. Since 88 percentof the libraries had strongly agreed oragreed that the statewide databases hadincreased library use and, as discussedabove, use of databases had increased, thispattern of response seemed puzzling andwas discussed with the focus group. It wastheir assessment that incorporation of da-tabase use into the library instruction pro-gram, the increased computer literacy ofstudents, and the peer instruction thatoccurs among students helped to account

for a lack of increase in demand forassistance comparable to the increase inuse of the library and the increase in use ofdatabases. One focus group participantalso observed that the increased need tocreate Web help pages occasioned by theincreased access to databases was notthought of as an increased demand forassistance, reflecting a lag in recastingthe concept of service and assistance inthe changed environment.

Another aspect of library operationsimpacted by the statewide program is stafftraining in use of the databases. The ODLprovides such training at workshops at theODL location in Oklahoma City, onsite inindividual libraries, and through work-shops in other locations. While staff ofsome of the responding libraries had re-ceived ODL-provided training in one ormore of these venues, the most prevalentform of training for academic libraries inuse of the databases was through in-housetraining (see Table 10). The majority of therespondents did not find ODL trainingcritical to use of the databases (59 percent),although they did find ODL assistance andtrouble shooting for the databases providedwhen needed (97.5 percent strongly agreedor agreed that it was). The academic librar-ies differed on this training aspect fromboth public and special libraries, for whosestaff the most frequent mode of trainingwas workshops at ODL.

CHANGING RELATIONSHIPS

As noted above, the Statewide Informa-tion Databases Program is the first use offederal funding administered by the statelibrary in Oklahoma that has provideddirect benefit to the academic libraries ofthe state. The ODL, while authorized towork in cooperation with other types oflibraries in the provision of library serv-ices, is responsible for public library de-velopment in the state, for publicly

supported institutional libraries, and forlibraries serving state agencies. It has nostatutory responsibility for academic li-braries. However, the academic librarieshave responded overall in a more positivemanner to the new program than any othercategory of library, even though in the

‘‘. . .the academic librarieshave responded overall in a

more positive manner tothe new program than any

other category oflibrary. . .’’

aggregate they had more use of databases

before the implementation of the statewide

program than any other type. The highest

percentage of respondents assessing the

statewide information databases as essen-

tial to the services of the library was in

academic libraries; the highest percentage

of respondents judging access to have

enhanced the public image of the library

was from the academic library category;

and the highest percentage of respondents

finding the databases to have enhanced

decision-makers’ perception of the library

was the academic library group. A higher

percentage of the academic library respon-

dents attributed an increase in library use

to the program than any other group.Why, given the lack of prior relation-

ship between the ODL and the academiclibraries of the state, has this programbeen so enthusiastically received? Thepossible answers to this question are sug-gested by several of the findings reportedabove. First, the greater level of priorexperience with databases may have pro-vided a better initial appreciation of thepotential value of expanded access todatabases that the individual librariescould not afford. While this difference inreaction may change over time, as theother types of libraries increase their useof databases, the initial higher level ofknowledge of the potential worth could bea contributing factor.

A second possible explanation is in thenature of the services provided by aca-demic libraries, particularly in contrast tothose provided by public and school li-braries. The research resource intensivenature of academic library services placesa greater emphasis on the types of accessavailable through the databases in the

program, although the databases providedhave been carefully selected to providetypes of resources that will meet informa-tion needs in all types of libraries.

Another potential factor is the relativelygreater ability of the academic libraries toreallocate funds previously used to supplydatabases now available in the statewideprogram. Other types of libraries were lesslikely to report reallocation of funds. Thedatabases provided an increase in the ser-vice potential of those libraries, but therewas no reclaiming of funds for other uses,which would make the supplying of thedatabases even more valuable.

There is also the possibility, suggestedby participants in the focus group, that themere fact that the state library was payingattention to academic libraries helped togenerate some positive feelings. Althoughthe various roles of those entities involvedin the database program are not clearlyunderstood, as indicated in the discussionon funding, the establishment of a rela-tionship between the state library and theacademic libraries has been a step forward.The inclusion of the OSRHE, with whichthe academic libraries in the publicly sup-ported institutions have an ongoing rela-tionship, as part of the structure forproviding the databases, although causingsome confusion regarding funding sour-ces, is also a promising change in that thesetwo agencies, the state library and the stateboard of regents, are brought together in aworking relationship that may have poten-tial for further cooperation on other proj-ects. The increase of the visibility of thestate library within the academic librarycommunity developed through the State-wide Information Databases Programoffers hope for a new environment ofenhanced cooperation in the state.

CONCLUSION

The Statewide Information DatabasesProgram has definitely made a differencefor academic libraries in Oklahoma. The

‘‘The StatewideInformation DatabasesProgram has definitelymade a difference foracademic libraries in

Oklahoma.’’

most immediate difference has been inthe increased access to information and

what that access has meant in terms ofservices that can be provided, the usesmade of the information, and thechanges occurring in the image of thelibrary. As one focus group participantexpressed it, ‘‘Without this, we’d all bein a world of hurt.’’ The increaseddatabase access has not overburdenedlibrary staff, in part because instructionin use has been folded into alreadyexisting modes of bibliographic instruc-tion and in part because the academiclibraries were at least somewhat preparedfrom their previous access to databases.The statewide databases program hasmeant an increase of available fundingfor other uses, at least for a substantialmajority of the academic libraries, rais-ing the overall level of service that canbe provided.

Beyond these tangible differences, thestatewide databases program has helpedto create a more promising environmentfor statewide cooperation through the es-tablishment of an ongoing relationshipbetween the academic libraries of the stateand the state library. Participation by 100percent of the academic libraries in thestatewide databases program is includedas a target in the new LSTA 5-Year Plan,signaling incorporation of academic li-braries into a major planning documentof the state library. The current level ofparticipation is 90 percent.35 In the longrun, this difference may, in fact, be themost important one.

For academic libraries in other statesthat, like Oklahoma, have not yet de-veloped a sustained mechanism for mul-titype cooperation or a sustained rela-tionship between academic libraries andthe state library, the Oklahoma experi-ence suggests that the inclusion of aca-demic libraries in a major state libraryinitiative, whether it concentrates ondatabase provision or some other meansof outreach, can be a catalyst for initiatinga change in the relationship. Whethersuch a change can be as successfullyinitiated from the academic library sideis a question not answerable from thisstudy.

UNCITED REFERENCE

32

Acknowledgments: The research onwhich this article is based was supportedby the Oklahoma Department of Libraries(ODL) with Library Services and Tech-nology Act (LSTA) funds and was part ofa larger evaluation of use of LSTA funding

May 2004 185

in Oklahoma, conducted by the twoauthors and other members of the facultyof the University of Oklahoma School ofLibrary and Information Studies. The fullevaluation report was made available byODL at their Web site (http://www.odl.state.ok.us/fyi/lsta/LSTA-Report.pdf).

The authors greatly appreciate thecooperation of all those who participatedin the study and the assistance providedby ODL in the conduct of the work. Allopinions expressed and conclusionsdrawn are those of the authors and donot represent the position of ODL.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Charles Anderson & Ann Weston, ‘‘TheCosts of Online Searching,’’ Library Jour-nal 112 (April 1, 1987): 44–47.

2. Tina Roose, ‘‘Integrating Online Searchingwith Reference Service,’’ Library Journal112 (June 1, 1987): 86–87.

3. Mary Jo Lynch, ‘‘Financing Online Serv-ices,’’ RQ 21 (Spring 1982): 223–226.

4. John H. Haar, ‘‘The Politics of Informa-tion: Libraries and Online Retrieval Sys-tems,’’ Library Journal 111 (February 1,1986): 41.

5. Jay Martin Poole & Gloriana St. Clair,‘‘Funding Online Services from the Mate-rials Budget,’’ College and Research Li-braries 47 (May 1986): 225–229; SheilaDowd, John H. Whatley Jr., & MarciaPankake, ‘‘Reactions to ‘Funding OnlineServices from the Materials Budget,’’’ Col-lege and Research Libraries 47 (May 1986):230–237.

6. Peter Jacso, ‘‘Finding Free Databases toReplace Fee-Based Information Services,’’Computers in Libraries 20 (November/De-cember 2000): 61–62.

7. Ann Bristow Beltran, ‘‘Funding Computer-Assisted Reference in Academic ResearchLibraries,’’ Journal of Academic Librarian-ship 13 (1) (1987): 4–7.

8. Haar, ‘‘The Politics of Information,’’ p. 43.9. Carol Tenopir, ‘‘Options for Accessing Da-tabases,’’ Library Journal 116 (November1, 1991): 73, 75.

10. Carol Tenopir, ‘‘Flat-Fee Pricing and OtherChoices,’’ Library Journal 118 (February1, 1993): 58, 60.

11. Angee Baker, ‘‘The Impact of Consortia onDatabase Licensing,’’ Computers in Libra-ries 20 (June 2000): 46–50; Josie Morgan,‘‘Working Together Really Can TurnDreams into Realities,’’ Computers in Li-braries 21 (January 2001): 51–55; GloriaMcClanahan, ‘‘The Texas Library Connec-tion (TLC) from the Beginning,’’ Texas Li-brary Journal 77 (Fall 2001): 93–95.

12. Nancy Bolt, ‘‘Libraries, Public Policy, andEconomic Development,’’ Library Admin-istration and Management 5 (Spring 1991):81.

186 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

13. Washington State Library, ‘‘Statewide Da-tabase Licensing Project,’’ Olympia Wash-ington: Washington Secretary of State.(n.d.), Available: http://www.statelib.wa.gov/libraries/projects/sdl/ (accessed June4, 2003).

14. New York State Library, The New YorkState Library Services and TechnologyAct Five-Year Evaluation Report, October1, 1997–September 2002 (Albany: NewYork State Library, 2002). Available:http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/lsta/eval/overall.htm#I (accessed June 3, 2003).

15. Connecticut State Library Division of Li-brary Development, Connecticut: Resour-ces for Our Communities, An Evaluationof Connecticut’s Five-Year LSTA Plan(Princeton, NJ: Library Development Sol-utions), pp. 15 – 16. Available: http://www.cslib.orgilsta/evaI02.pdf (accessedJune 3, 2003).

16. Rand Simmons, ‘‘Future of the StatewideDatabase Licensing Project,’’ ALKI 17(December 2001): 20–21, 24; WashingtonState Library, ‘‘Statewide Database Li-censing Project,’’ Olympia Washington:Washington Secretary of State. (n.d.), Avail-able: http://www.statelib.wa.gov/libraries/projects/sdi/; (accessed June 4, 2003).

17. Library of Michigan, ‘‘LSTA Five YearState Plan Evaluation, October 1, 1997–September 30, 2002, Executive Sum-mary,’’ (February 27, 2002). Available:http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_lm_lstaevalrpt22702_52480_7.pdf(accessed June 4, 2003); Library ofMichigan, ‘‘The Original AccessMichi-gan Vision Document,’’ Michigan eLi-brary (May 21, 2003). Available:http://www. accessmichigan.lib.mi.us/aboutlnew-accmich.htm (accessed June 4,2003).

18. South Carolina State Library, Library Serv-ices and Technology Act, Five-Year Evalu-ation (April 30, 2002). Available: http://www.state.sc.us/scsi/pubs/istaeval.pdf (ac-cessed June 4, 2003).

19. Tennessee State Library and Archives,‘‘Tennessee Electronic Library,’’ LibraryServices and Technology Act Five-YearState Plan Evaluation, prepared by SandraNelson Consulting (Nashville, 1/30/02),pp. 23–39. Available: http://www.state.tn.us/sos/statelib/p&d/ista/report.pdf (ac-cessed June 4, 2003).

20. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruc-tion, Public Library Development, LibraryServices and Technology Act: LSTA Five-Year Evaluation for Wisconsin, 1997–2002(Madison, WI: April 2002, updated May2002). Available: http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dltcl/pld/lstaeval.html#Results%20ofll/o201n-Depth%20Evaluations (ac-cessed June 9, 2003).

21. Alaska Technology Associates, LibraryServices and Technology Act Five YearPlan 1998–2002 Evaluation: Alaska (An-chorage: Alaska State Library, March

2002), pp. 11–12. Available: http://www.library.state.ak.us/dev/lstafinal2002.doc(accessed June 9, 2003).

22. Arkansas State Library, Evaluation of the1998–2002 Library Services and Technol-ogy Act Five-Year State Plan (April2002), pp. 42–46. Available: http://www.asl.lib.ar.us/Arkansas%20LSTA%205-year%20Evaluation.pdf (accessed June 10,2003).

23. State Library of Ohio, State of Ohio Five-Year Plan 2003–2007 (July 2002). Avail-able: http://winslo.state.oh.us/publib/lsta5yr.html (accessed June 11, 2003).

24. Gayle McKinney & Anne Page Mosby,‘‘Online in Academia: A Survey of OnlineSearching in US Colleges and Univer-sities,’’ Online Review 10 (2) (1986):107–124.

25. Joanna M. Burkhardt, ‘‘The Smallest Aca-demic Libraries in the United States andElectronic Technology,’’ Reference andUser Services Quarterly 27 (Winter 1997):191–196.

26. Stanley Gardner, ‘‘A Descriptive Study ofStatewide Bibliographic Databases,’’ Jour-nal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Deliv-ery & Information Supply 4 (3–4) (1994):169–221.

27. Oklahoma Department of Libraries, ODLProcess Executive Summary, a Plan to Re-design Oklahoma’s State Library for theInformation Age, September 17, 1996(Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Departmentof Libraries, 1996), p. 11.

28. Oklahoma Department of Libraries Board,Minutes of Meeting, September 17, 1996(Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Departmentof Libraries, 1996), p. 2.

29. Oklahoma Department of Libraries Board,Minutes of Meeting, January 31, 1997(Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Departmentof Libraries, 1997), pp. 2–3.

30. Oklahoma Department of Libraries Board,Minutes of Meeting, May 2, 1997 (Oklaho-ma City: Oklahoma Department of Libra-ries, 1997), p. 2.

31. Oklahoma Department of Libraries Board,Minutes of Meeting, February 27, 1998(Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Departmentof Libraries, 1998), p. 2.

32. Oklahoma Department of Libraries Board,Minutes of Meeting, July 28, 2000 (Okla-homa City: Oklahoma Department of Li-braries, 2000), p. 1.

33. Oklahoma Department of Libraries Board,Minutes of Meeting, September 29, 2000(Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Departmentof Libraries, 2000), pp. 1–2.

34. U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder.Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet; State and CountyQuick Facts. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet (ac-cessed January 7, 2002).

35. Oklahoma Department of Libraries, LSTA5-Year Plan, 2003–2007 (Oklahoma City:ODL, 2002), p. 4.

Appendix A

May 2004 187

188 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

May 2004 189

190 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

May 2004 191

192 The Journal of Academic Librarianship