FEATURE Eventing stallions To compete or not to compete? Only a ...
Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
-
Upload
denise-troll-covey -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 1/13
Carnegie Mellon University
From the SelectedWorks of Denise Troll Covey
January 2011
Open Access and Library Resources Compete inImportance
Contact Author
Start Your OwnSelectedWorks
Notify Meof New Work
Available at: hp://works.bepress.com/denise_troll_covey/61
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 2/13
1
Open AccessandLibraryResourcesCompeteinImportance
Denise Troll Covey
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Carnegie Mellon University
Janel A. Sutkus
Director, Institutional Research and Analysis
Carnegie Mellon University
Purpose – Few assessments of academic library value have included the value of open access
resources, despite widespread agreement that dramatic changes in the scholarly landscape
challenge the library’s relevance and viability. This paper reports on faculty and graduate
student perceptions of the relative importance of various resources to particular teaching and
research activities.
Methodology – Faculty and graduate students were surveyed and group difference tests
conducted on the findings using independent samples t‐tests and Chi‐square cross tabulations.
Findings – Open access resources compete in importance with full‐text digital resources
provided by the library. Both are more important to research than teaching, but open access
resources are the most important resource in some teaching activities.
Implications – Understanding student and faculty use of open access resources has implications
for library acquisitions and instruction. Research is needed to improve our understanding of
factors that affect the shift to open access.
Keywords – academic library value, open access
1.Introduction
The academic library landscape has changed dramatically over the past decade. Changes in
user behavior, driven by technology, and increasing financial pressure, driven by the recession,
compel libraries to demonstrate their value to their institution. In this environment, decisions
about staffing, services, facilities, and the acquisition of materials must be informed by
evidence of need and importance. Libraries are conducting assessments of their value. Some
studies endeavor
to
show
the
return
on
investment
in
the
library.
Others
attempt
to
show
the
library’s contribution to the institution’s mission. At Carnegie Mellon, the University Libraries
chose the latter approach.
Carnegie Mellon is a relatively small, private, research university. Our mission is to create and
disseminate knowledge and art through research and creative inquiry and to serve our students
by teaching them problem solving, leadership and teamwork skills, and the value of
commitment to quality, ethical behavior, and respect for others (2008). To assess and enhance
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 3/13
2
our contribution to this mission, the University Libraries needs both an analysis of trends in the
use of library resources and an analysis of the importance of various resources to student and
faculty work, regardless of whether we provide these materials. Developing an effective
strategic plan and appropriately allocating the Libraries’ human and financial resources to serve
the university’s mission requires us to understand our position in the larger information
landscape.
In 2010 Carnegie Mellon University Libraries surveyed campus faculty and graduate students.
The primary goal of the surveys was to assess the relative importance of various resources –
provided by the library or freely available (open access) on the web – to particular teaching and
research activities. The secondary goal was to understand faculty and graduate student
practice of making their work available open access.
The surveys were developed in collaboration with and administered and analyzed by the Office
of Institutional Research and Analysis. The faculty survey was conducted spring 2010, the
graduate student survey fall 2010.
2.Method
Several items in the surveys were loosely based on questions posed by the University of
Washington Libraries in a 2007 survey of research scientists. Considered leaders in creating a
culture of assessment in the academic library community, the University of Washington asked
respondents to rate the importance of selected library resources and of the library’s
contribution to selected activities. Similar to their survey, we captured demographic data to
conduct group difference tests of the importance of various resources by college affiliation and
research funding. Unlike the Washington survey, our surveys also enabled us to determine the
importance of
each
resource
to
each
activity
and
to
conduct
group
difference
tests
by
teaching
responsibilities, faculty track, faculty age bracket, and graduate degree program. Appropriately
interpreting the findings requires a rudimentary understanding of how Carnegie Mellon
operates. This background information is provided as needed throughout this article.
The surveys focused on activities on Carnegie Mellon’s main campus in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, during the 2009‐10 academic year. All Pittsburgh‐based faculty on the research,
tenure, or teaching track, and all non‐student employees who taught or conducted research as
their primary function (e.g., postdoctoral researchers) were invited to participate in the faculty
survey during the spring semester of 2010. All Pittsburgh‐based graduate students enrolled
both
semesters
of
the
2009‐
10
academic
year
were
invited
to
participate
in
the
graduate
student survey during the fall semester of 2010. Reminder invitations were sent one and two
weeks after the initial invitations. Response rates are shown in table 1. Tables 2 and 3 show
the respondents’ demographic characteristics.
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 4/13
3
Table 1. Response.
Faculty Grad students
Initial invitations 1,262 1,000
Initial respondents 169 205
Initial response rate 13.4% 20.5%
Reminder invitations 1,093 795
Reminder respondents 105 61
Reminder response rate 9.6% 7.7%
Reminder invitations 988 734
Reminder respondents 34 39
Reminder response rate 3.5% 5.3%
Total 308 305
Response rate 24.4% 30.5%
Table 2. Faculty respondent demographics.
College Respondents
Taught
undergrad
course
Taught
graduate
course
Received
research
funding
Used
research
funding
CFA Fine Arts 24 8% 22 13 5 5
CIT Engineering 62 20% 42 36 47 54
HNZ Public Policy 11 4% 3 9 4 5
HSS Humanities and Social Sciences 70 23% 56 27 31 39
MC Science and Mathematics 71 23% 47 29 46 54
SCS Computer Science 49 16% 15 26 37 43
TSB Business and Economics 21 7% 14 18 13 16
Total 308 199 158 183 216
65% 51% 59% 70%
Age Group Respondents
Taught
undergrad
course
Taught
graduate
course
Received
research
funding
Used
research
funding
Under 30 24 8% 12 6 10 21
31‐36 40 13% 22 13 29 33
36‐40 39 13% 26 20 25 32
41‐45 37 12% 25 21 24 28
46‐50 43 14% 25 27 27 28
51‐55 40 13% 28 21 22 25
56‐60 32 10% 23 22 18 19
61‐65 24 8% 19 11 14 15
Over 65 29 9% 19 17 14 15
Total 308 199 158 183 216
65% 51% 59% 70%
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 5/13
4
Table 3. Graduate student respondent demographics.
College Respondents Ph.D.
Research
Master’s
degree
Professional
Master’s
degree
Taught
any
course
Used
research
funding
CFA Fine Arts 14 5% 2 2 10 2 2
CIT
Engineering
111
36%
80
14
17
21
44
HNZ Public Policy 34 11% 7 3 24 6 3
HSS Humanities and Social Sciences 19 6% 17 1 141 11 6
MCS Science and Mathematics 27 9% 26 1 0 9 13
SCS Computer Science 52 17% 41 4 7 10 27
TSB Business and Economics 48 16% 12 4 32 3 6
Total 305 185 29 91 62 158
61% 10% 30% 20% 52%
Demographic groups responded to the surveys at different rates. To compensate for this
disparity and its potential to bias the relationship between respondents’ answers and their
demographic characteristics, the collected data were weighted to simulate what might have
happened if the
entire
population
responded.
Data
from
the
faculty
survey
were
weighted
based on a cross‐tabulation of primary college affiliation and age; data from the graduate
student survey were weighted based on a cross‐tabulation of college affiliation and program
type (Ph.D., research Master’s, professional Master’s) and the weights were applied to all
analyses.
The primary analytic method for the survey findings was group difference testing. With
continuous data (e.g., ratings of importance), independent samples t‐tests were conducted to
compare the mean of one group to the mean of another group. With nominal data (e.g., self ‐
archiving practices), cross‐tabulations with Chi‐square were used. All group difference tests
were conducted
strictly
among
groups
of
faculty
or
groups
of
graduate
students.
No
comparisons were conducted across faculty and graduate student groups.
3.TheImportanceof Resources
We asked faculty and graduate students to rate the importance of various resources to various
activities using a unipolar scale with five options from very important to unimportant , and a
sixth option of does not apply to me. The scale used in the analysis is shown in table 4 and the
mean scores are shown in table 5.
Table 4.
Very important 4
Important 3
Moderately important 2
Of little importance 1
Unimportant 0
Does not apply to me Not included
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 6/13
5
Table 5. The importance of resources to activities.
Resources
Provided by the University LibrariesOpen access
resources
Digital full‐text
materials
Databases Physical
materials
Tasks / Respondents Faculty Grad Faculty Grad Faculty Grad Faculty Grad
Keeping current
in
their
field
3.56 3.38 3.39 3.37 2.45 2.49
3.23
3.41
Finding information in other fields 2.99 2.73 3.19 3.12 2.40 2.53 3.39 3.47
Being productive 3.59 3.42 3.36 3.38 2.59 2.83 3.23 3.34
Being an effective instructor 2.90 2.65 2.70 2.79 2.60 2.59 3.10 3.01
Enriching student learning 2.89 2.71 2.69 2.76 2.64 2.53 3.09 3.11
Saving time 3.44 3.13 3.25 3.23 2.27 2.26 3.32 3.40
Preparing grant proposals 3.10 2.96 2.97 2.94 1.97 2.26 2.89 2.98
We expected digital materials to be more important to faculty and graduate students than
physical materials and this turned out to be the case. Respondents rated digital full‐text and
databases provided by the library and resources freely available on the web as important or
moderately important
for
all
activities.
They
rated
physical
materials
provided
by
the
library
as
only moderately important for all activities. The importance of physical materials did not
exceed the importance of digital materials on any task.
Assuming that graduate students regularly interacted with technology from an earlier age than
many faculty, we expected graduate students to value open access resources more than faculty
do. This appears to be the case, though the difference is probably not statistically significant.
What is noteworthy is the relative importance of open access resources and full‐text digital
materials provided by the library. With one exception, graduate students consider open access
resources to be more important in the activities assessed than digital full text provided by the
library. For three of the seven activities, even faculty rated open access resources as more
important than
digital
full
text
provided
by
the
library.
Faculty and graduate students appear to value different resources for different activities. In
terms of keeping current in their field, faculty value the contribution of full‐text digital materials
provided by the library significantly more than any other resource; graduate students value the
contribution of open access resources slightly more than that of digital full text provided by the
library, suggesting that graduate students, more than faculty, use open access resources in their
primary work. Faculty and graduate students agree that full‐text digital materials provided by
the library make the greatest contribution to their being productive, and that open access
resources make the greatest contribution to finding information in other fields, being effective
instructors, and
enriching
student
learning
experiences.
They
disagree
about
what
resources
are most important to saving time and preparing grant proposals. Faculty rated full‐text digital
materials provided by the library as most important to these activities. Graduate students
rated open access resources as much more important than digital full text provided by the
library for saving time and somewhat more important for preparing grant proposals.
Based loosely on age, we expected faculty to value physical resources more than graduate
students do. To our surprise, there appears to be little if any significant difference, though
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 7/13
6
CFA = Fine arts CIT = Engineering HNZ = Public policy HSS = Humanities and social sciences
MCS = Science and mathematics SCS = Computer science TSB = Business and economics
students and faculty disagree somewhat about the contributions of physical materials. Both
groups value the contribution of physical materials to being effective instructors, but faculty
most value the contribution of physical materials to enriching student learning experiences.
Graduate students most value the contribution of physical materials to being productive, an
unexpected finding.
The overall mean scores are of limited usefulness in strategic planning. We assumed that
college affiliation, teaching and research activities, research funding, faculty track, faculty age,
and graduate student program would play a significant role in how faculty and graduate
students valued resources. We therefore calculated several sets of group means and tested
them against each other to identify significant differences. Where no significant difference
existed, the groups placed equal importance on that resource.
3.1.FindingsbyCollege
Significant differences by college need to be interpreted cautiously. The survey data associate
respondents only with their home college. However, much of the work conducted at Carnegie
Mellon is interdisciplinary. Many faculty members have appointments or engage in significant
collaborations with faculty in multiple departments or colleges. Many graduate degree
programs are likewise collaborative ventures of multiple departments or colleges.
Furthermore, within a single college, such as the College of Humanities and Social Sciences,
each department can have very different scholarly practices.
With that in mind, we expected faculty and graduate students in the College of Engineering
(CIT), Mellon College of Science (MCS), and School of Computer Science (SCS) to value full‐text
digital materials and databases provided by the library more than their peers in other
disciplines.
We expected
faculty
and
graduate
students
in
the
College
of
Fine
Arts
(CFA)
and
College of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) to value physical materials more than their
peers. We expected those in disciplines with a self ‐archiving culture, such as SCS, to value open
access resources more than their peers in disciplines without a self ‐archiving culture.
With rare exception, the significant differences that surfaced in the survey met our
expectations for faculty. Compared with all other faculty , on four or more of the activities
assessed:
Full‐text digital materials and databases provided by the library are significantly more
important
to
CIT
faculty
and
significantly
less
important
to
CFA
faculty.
Databases provided by the library are also significantly more important to HSS faculty.
Physical materials provided by the library are significantly more important to CFA and
HSS faculty and significantly less important to SCS faculty.
Open access resources are significantly more important to SCS faculty.
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 8/13
7
CFA = Fine arts CIT = Engineering HNZ = Public policy HSS = Humanities and social sciences
MCS = Science and mathematics SCS = Computer science TSB = Business and economics
Compared with all other graduate students, on four or more of the activities assessed:
Databases provided by the library are significantly more important to HSS graduate
students.
Physical materials provided by the library are significantly more important to CIT and
HSS graduate
students.
The finding for CIT is unexpected. In general, graduate students appear to value physical
materials more than faculty, and CIT graduate students value physical materials significantly
more than most of their peers.
3.2.FindingsbyOtherDemographics
Most faculty at Carnegie Mellon are appointed to either the tenure, research, or teaching track.
Tenure‐track faculty are expected to teach and to conduct research. Research‐track faculty are
not expected to teach, but to secure funding and conduct research. Teaching‐track faculty are
not expected to conduct research, but to teach. Each track has its own policy and requirements
for promotion.
Graduate students are enrolled in a Ph.D. program or master’s degree program. Master’s
degree programs may be research‐oriented, possibly preliminary to enrolling in a Ph.D.
program, or professionally‐oriented. The two types of master’s degree programs are referred
to as research master’s and professional master’s degree programs.
We expected full‐text digital materials provided by the library to be more important to those
who conduct research than to those whose primary responsibility is teaching. The results meet
our expectation.
Among
graduate
students,
in
four
or
more
activities,
full
‐text
digital
materials
provided by the library are significantly more important to Ph.D. students than to master’s
degree students, though surprisingly there was no significant difference between research
master’s and professional master’s degree students. Among faculty, in four or more activities,
those with research funding value full‐text digital materials provided by the library significantly
more than those without research funding. Teaching‐track faculty value digital full text
provided by the library significantly less than faculty not on the teaching track.
As expected, on four or more activities, open access resources are significantly more important
to research‐track faculty than to faculty not on the research track, and significantly less
important
to
faculty
over
age
65
than
to
faculty
age
65
and
younger.
Physical
resources
provided by the library are significantly more important to faculty who teach undergraduate
courses than to those who do not teach undergraduates, and significantly less important to
faculty with research funding (all research‐track faculty and many tenure‐track faculty) than to
those without.
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 9/13
8
CFA = Fine arts CIT = Engineering HNZ = Public policy HSS = Humanities and social sciences
MCS = Science and mathematics SCS = Computer science TSB = Business and economics
4.Self ‐archivingPractice
We also asked faculty and graduate students to indicate whether they self ‐archived their work and
if so, in which of multiple locations. The results are shown in table 6. We expected at least 40
percent of the faculty to have self ‐archived their work (Troll Covey, 2008), but did not know what
to expect
of
the
graduate
students.
To
our
surprise,
83
percent
of
faculty
and
graduate
students
responded that their work was available open access. As expected, personal and departmental
websites are the most popular places to self ‐archive. More faculty self ‐archive in a disciplinary
repository than graduate students. Faculty and graduate students self ‐archive in Carnegie
Mellon’s institutional repository, Research Showcase, at similarly low rates.
Table 6. Self ‐archiving practice.
Venue Faculty Grad
Personal website 46% 33%
Departmental website 27% 27%
Disciplinary
repository
19%
9%CMU Research Showcase 5% 7%
Work not available open access 17% 17%
We expected more faculty and graduate students in disciplines with a self ‐archiving culture to self ‐
archive than those in disciplines without a self ‐archiving culture. We expected more of those
whose primary responsibility is research to self ‐archive than those whose primary responsibility is
teaching. We expected those who self ‐archive in disciplines with a disciplinary repository to
prefer self ‐archiving in that repository. Among faculty, the data meet our expectations:
Significantly more faculty with research funding self ‐archive than those without research
funding.
Significantly more faculty who teach graduate courses self ‐archive than those who do not
teach graduate courses. There was no significant difference in self ‐archiving practice
based on teaching or not teaching undergraduate courses.
Compared with faculty in other colleges, significantly more SCS faculty self ‐archive on a
website, significantly more faculty in MCS self ‐archive in a disciplinary repository, and
significantly fewer faculty in CIT self ‐archive anywhere.
Significantly more tenure‐track faculty self ‐archive in a disciplinary repository than faculty
not on the tenure track.
The picture
is
somewhat
different
with
graduate
students:
Compared with graduate students in other colleges, significantly more graduate students
in SCS and CFA self ‐archive on a website; significantly more graduate students in MCS, HSS,
and TSB self ‐archive in a disciplinary repository; significantly more graduate students in
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 10/13
9
CFA = Fine arts CIT = Engineering HNZ = Public policy HSS = Humanities and social sciences
MCS = Science and mathematics SCS = Computer science TSB = Business and economics
MCS and HNZ self ‐archive in Carnegie Mellon’s institutional repository, Research
Showcase; and significantly fewer graduate students in CIT self ‐archive anywhere.
Significantly more graduate students with research funding self ‐archive than those without
research funding.
Significantly more graduate students who teach self ‐archive than those who do not teach.
Significantly more
Ph.D.
students
self
‐archive
than
master’s
degree
students.
Significantly more students enrolled in research master’s degree programs self ‐archive
than those enrolled in professional master’s degree programs.
We also asked graduate students about plans to make their thesis, dissertation, or final project
available open access. Respondents could select multiple options. Overall, the most popular
choice (43 percent) was depositing their work in a Carnegie Mellon open access repository other
than Research Showcase. However, more graduate students (37 percent) plan to deposit their
work in Research Showcase than in a non‐CMU repository (23 percent). The least popular choice
(20 percent) was making their work available open access in ProQuest.
Open access plans varied across colleges. Table 7 indicates venues where significantly more
graduate students in each college plan to deposit their work in comparison with their peers in
other colleges. Plans in CIT are noteworthy given that significantly fewer CIT graduate students
currently self ‐archive. In addition:
Significantly more Ph.D. students than master’s degree students plan to make their
dissertation or thesis available open access in any venue.
Significantly more research master’s degree students than professional master’s degree
students plan to make their work available open access in Research Showcase or ProQuest.
Significantly more graduate students who teach or have research funding, compared to
those who
do
not,
plan
to
make
their
dissertation
or
thesis
available
open
access
in
Research Showcase, another CMU repository, or ProQuest.
Table 7. Open access plans for dissertation, thesis, or final project.
College
Research
Showcase
Other CMU
repository
Non‐CMU
repository
ProQuest
CFA
CIT X X X
HNZ
HSS X X X
MCS
X XSCS X X X
TSB
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 11/13
10
CFA = Fine arts CIT = Engineering HNZ = Public policy HSS = Humanities and social sciences
MCS = Science and mathematics SCS = Computer science TSB = Business and economics
5.Conclusions
Resources provided by the University Libraries contribute to the university’s mission of creating
and disseminating knowledge and art. Library resources are important to faculty and graduate
students throughout the university, though what resources they value most for various activities
differs significantly
across
academic
disciplines
and
primary
responsibilities
(teaching
or
research).
Overall, databases and digital full text are more important than physical materials. Faculty and
graduate students rated digital full text as the most important resource contributing to their
productivity. Full‐text digital materials provided by the library are significantly more important to
those whose primary responsibility is research. In contrast, physical materials provided by the
library are significantly more important to those whose primary responsibility is teaching.
Though rated overall as only moderately important, physical materials provided by the library
continue to be important to some demographic groups. Compared with their peers in other
disciplines, physical materials are significantly more important to faculty in CFA and HSS and to
graduate students in CIT and HSS. Physical materials are also significantly more important to
faculty who teach undergraduate courses than to those who do not, but they are not more
important to graduate students who teach than to those who do not. Faculty and graduate
students disagree about the activities to which physical materials make the greatest contribution.
Open access resources compete with library resources in importance. Though the competition is
more striking in graduate student responses than faculty responses, for several activities even
faculty rated open access resources as the most important resource. Open access resources are
significantly more important to research‐track faculty than to other faculty, but they are also
important in teaching. Faculty and graduate students rated open access resources as the most
important resources contributing to their being effective instructors and enriching student
learning experiences.
These
findings
augment
the
discovery
in
another
study
conducted
by
the
University Libraries in 2010 that faculty found roughly 22 percent of the materials they used in
their academic work freely available on the web (St. Clair, Troll Covey, and Linke, forthcoming).
Open access resources are changing the scholarly information landscape and the library’s position
in it.
In addition to using open access resources, most Carnegie Mellon faculty and graduate students
make their work available open access. Research responsibilities and funding appear to drive self ‐
archiving practice, as does disciplinary culture and the availability of disciplinary repositories.
Given that key publishers in engineering allow self ‐archiving, the unexpected finding that,
compared
to
their
peers
in
other
disciplines,
significantly
fewer
faculty
and
graduate
students
in
CIT currently self ‐archive warrants investigation.
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 12/13
11
CFA = Fine arts CIT = Engineering HNZ = Public policy HSS = Humanities and social sciences
MCS = Science and mathematics SCS = Computer science TSB = Business and economics
6.Next Steps
We need to situate the survey findings and determine next steps within the larger context of
changes occurring in the scholarly information landscape. The increasing availability and use of
open access resources is an important change. The transition from print to electronic journals is
veritably complete,
providing
much
of
the
digital
full
text
valued
by
our
faculty
and
graduate
students. The transition from print to electronic books is accelerating. Each of these changes is a
harbinger of opportunity to reallocate human and financial resources.
Significant disciplinary differences identified in the surveys must be investigated in light of the
interdisciplinary research and teaching conducted at Carnegie Mellon. Liaison librarians plan to
consult their constituencies to determine if the survey findings resonate with their perception of
the importance of various resources. The librarians will also explore how faculty and graduate
students use physical materials provided by the library, with particular attention to differences
between faculty and graduate student use in CFA and CIT. Understanding how different groups
use physical materials is critical to developing a strategy and pace for transitioning from physical
books to e‐books across the disciplines.
The findings on self ‐archiving practice and graduate student plans to provide open access to their
dissertation or thesis are encouraging. We need to understand the dearth of self ‐archiving by
faculty and graduate students in CIT and to take aggressive steps to populate our institutional
repository. The faculty and graduate student surveys and faculty focus groups conducted in 2010
(Troll Covey, 2011) indicate that we must promote Research Showcase as an open access venue
for faculty and graduate student work, harvest material they have self ‐archived elsewhere, and
provide incentives to garner their direct participation.
In the
future
we
plan
to
investigate
what
percentage
of
materials
used
by
faculty
and
students
are
found freely available on the web and to conduct a study of undergraduate student perceptions
and values related to libraries in general and the University Libraries in particular. These studies
and those already conducted will inform our strategic plan and drive our resource allocation. As
more materials become available open access and disciplines increasingly rely on these materials,
we expect to recover financial resources and human capacity, enabling us to acquire important
materials that are not available open access and to develop new services designed to support
teaching, learning, and research.
References
Carnegie Mellon 2008 Strategic Plan, http://www.cmu.edu/strategic‐plan/2008‐strategic‐
plan/2008‐strategic‐plan.pdf (accessed 24 June 2011).
7/28/2019 Open Access and Library Resources Compete in Importance
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-access-and-library-resources-compete-in-importance 13/13
12
St. Clair, G., Troll Covey, D. and Linke, E. (forthcoming), “A Model for Campus Information
Consumption.”
Troll Covey, D. (2008), “Faculty Self ‐Archiving Practice: A Case Study,” white paper,
http://works.bepress.com/denise_troll_covey/35 (accessed 24 June 2011).
Troll Covey, D. (2011), “Recruiting Content for the Institutional Repository: The Barriers Exceed
the Benefits,” Journal of Digital Information, Vol. 12 No. 3,
http://works.bepress.com/denise_troll_covey/56/.