JEROLD NELSON

Faculty Awareness and Attitudes

Toward Academic Library Reference
Services: A Measure of Coininunication
A survey of the faculties at six colleges was undertaken to measure
the degree to which the libraries of those institutions were communi-
cating with the faculty concerning the availability of various refer-
ences services. The results demonstrated that the average faculty
member was aware of barely half the services actually available. V ari-
ables of academic rank, length of teaching, and amount of library
and reference use were some of the factors shown to affect faculty
awareness of Ubrary service.

CoMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE FACULTY demic librarian and the faculty. For ex-
and the academic librarian seriously af- ample, Knapp, in her study of one lib-
fects the functioning of academic li- eral arts college library, found a ccwide-
brary service. Without adequate com- spread lack of understanding or, at
munication between these parties, the least, consensus among faculty and staff
library's goals of educational service about what a library can and should
cannot be fully realized, the instruction- contribute to the college-indeed, about
al and research needs of the faculty what a library is."1 During her work at
cannot be fully realized, the instruction- Monteith College, she indicated that li-
dent cannot benefit fully from the re- brarians in the program were never
sources for education and enlighten- freely accepted by the teaching faculty
ment that the academic library has to as members in the teaching process, a
offer. Whatever the quality and quantity failure she partially blamed on prob-
of services provided by the library for lems of communication.2 De Hart's ex-
faculty and students, those services will periment in providing specialized infor-
lack effectiveness if their availability is mation services to the faculty did not
not made known. succeed because librarians and faculty
Communication between librarian members were unwilling to discard pre-
and patron, although a critical problem, conceptions; some would not even dis-
is not extensively covered by the litera- cuss the subject. 3 Schumacher's analysis
ture of librarianship. Most literature, of a Small College Information System
dealing with this topic, however, only reported that c'faculty ... appear to be
implies the existence of obstacles to ef- generally unaware of current library
fective communication between the aca- holdings and services and of how best
to make use of (those) facilities and
I erold Nelson is an assistant professor at services."4 Leonard and his associates
the School of Librarianship, University of discovered that faculty members at Col-
Washington, Seattle. orado colleges and universities fre-
268/
 Faculty Awareness and Attitudes I 269

quently thought that libraries should Available descriptive characteristics of

make greater efforts to «publicize ser- the respondent and nonrespondent
vices available to faculty (members) groups, including discipline, academic
. . . and to explain what these services rank, and years of service at the institu-
entail."5 Lawson's study of university tion, were compared and tested by the
reference services reported that the li- chi-square method. 8 There were no sig-
brary's failure to publicize the availabil- nificant differences and the response was
ity of reference activities resulted in accordingly accepted as a fair represen-
limited demands from the faculty for tation of the entire sample. Since the
the activities.s distribution of awareness data approxi-
Although these cases suggest problems mated a normal curve, the mean was se-
in communication, there exists a lack of lected as an appropriate measure of cen-
evidence necessary to evaluate the extent tral tendency.
of such problems, as well as a method
FINDINGS
to measure levels of faculty-librarian
communication. Tabulation of survey data (Table 2)
provided the following information.
METHODOLOGY
( 1) The sample's overall mean aware-
Faculty members were questioned ness score ( M.A.S.) of 6.2 significantly
about the availa · · of reference ser- represented less than half of the thir-
vices at their college library· thei teen services listed. 9
knowledge was assumed to be based on ( 2) Faculty from the humanities and
direct or indirect communication with from education had a higher level of
librarians at the college. Six institutions awareness than faculty from other
were selected from the California sys- teaching areas, but their superiority is
tem of state colleges and universities: statistically significant only in compari-
all had similar academic objectives, sim- son to the science group, which rated
ilar levels of resources and formulas lowest.
for resource allocation, and a similar ( 3) According to the data, level of
range of reference services. One thou- awareness is directly related to faculty
sand sixty-seven faculty members, rep- rank, although the difference in M.A.S.
resenting a 30 percent random sample between full and associate professors
from the full-time faculties of the col- was not statistically significant.
lege, were sent a questionnaire listing ( 4) Faculty who indicated at least
thirteen reference services, eleven of weekly use of the library's reference
which were offered by each of the li- services had a higher M.A.S. than those
braries on a regular basis (see Table 1). who used the services less frequently.
For each service, the respondents were Even a moderate use of reference ser-
asked to indicate either ( 1) that the ser- vices ( 1-2 times per month) produce a
vice was available, ( 2) that it was not greater than average awareness of their
available, or ( 3) that they did not know availability. The small group with a
the status of its availability. A negative high level of reference use had a mean
or ~~don't know" response for the eleven awareness that was much higher than
available services or a positive or ~~don't any subgroup in the study ( M.A.S. =
know" response for the two services not 7.8).
offered was taken to show inadequate ( 5) The M.A.S. of faculty who had
communication between the library and served on at least one committee dealing
the faculty. with library affairs was higher than the
Seventy-three percent of the corrected M.A.S. of those who had not served.
sample returned the questionnaires. 7 ( 6) Faculty who had been teaching
 270 I College & Research Libraries • September 1973

TABLE 1
SuMMARY OF RESPONSES BY FACULTY TO QUESTIONNAIRE ON REFERENCE SERVICES
(N = 694) ~
l
Classification Don't No
of Service Reference Service Provided Yes No Know Response

% % % %
Education- Advice and Assistance in Use of the Library 95 1 4 1
General Library Bulletins and Handbooks 74 10 14 2
Education-
Special
Library Instruction for Classes
Lists of Reference Sources for Specific Classes
65
17
3
14
31
68
1
1
1
Bibliographies for General Distribution 38 26 34 2 J
Information- Vertical Files 40 7 52 1
Materials Interlibrary Borrowing 85 2 13 1
Information-
Questions
Answer to a Factual Question
Answer to a Factual Question-Phone
Answer Requiring a Search
61
36
22
6
8
14
32
55
62
1
1
1
J
I
Answer Requiring Information from
Outside the Library 40 9 51 1
Information- Demand Bibliographies (not regularly available) 7 22 70 1
Special Literature Search (not regularly available) 5 21 73 1

TABLE 2
FACULTY MEAN AwARENEss ScoREs (scALE= 0-13)

Standard Standard
Category Mean Deviation No. Category Mean Deviation No.

OVERALL 6.2 2.4 663 BY LIBRARY USE

BY TEACHING AREA More Than Weekly 7.1 2.4 212
Humanities 6.5 2.4 163 3-4 Times per Month 6.4 2.1 206
Education 6.5 2.5 108 1-2 Times per Month 5.6 2.3 185
Applied Arts Rarely or Never 4.2 2.3 55
& Sciences 6.3 2.4 134 BY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Social Sciences 6.1 2.3 161 Members 6.9 2.4 237
Sciences 5.6 2.7 97 Nonmembers 5.9 2.4 423
BY FACULTY RANK BY LENGTH OF SERVICE
Professor 6.9 2.2 209 10 Years or More 7.2 2.1 198
Associate Professor 6.6 2.6 191 4-9 Years 6.2 2.4 293
Assistant Professor 1-3 Years 5.2 2.4 168
& Instructor 5.4 2.2 263 BY COLLEGE
BY REFERENCE USE College A 6.8 2.4 114
More Than Weekly 7.8 2.3 61 College B 6.3 2.4 172
3-4 Times per Month 7.1 2.3 104 College C 6.2 2.4 139
1-2 Times per Month 6.7 2.3 207 College D 6.0 2.4 104
Rarely or Never 5.3 2.2 283 College E 5.9 2.4 76
College F 5.8 2.6 58

at the college for at least ten years had els. Some libraries in the sample seem
a higher M.A.S. than those who had to be more effective in communicating
taught for a lesser period; level of the availability of services to their fac-
awareness varied directly with length of ulty clients. One college, designated here
service at the college. as College A, had a M.A.S. substantially
( 7) The data indicated that the six higher than any of the other colleges.
colleges, all similar in function and all Differences in M.A.S. among the other
under a highly centralized state system, colleges were not statistically significant.
demonstrated a range of awareness lev- In general, the most widely recognized
 Faculty Awareness and Attitudes I 271

educational service of the library was ability of a service tends to diminish.

the providing of advice and assistance That inference, in turn, supports the
in the use of the library. Ninety-five basic premise of the investigation, that
percent of the respondents were aware communication is less than adequate be-
that this service was available (see Fig- tween the faculty and librarians in aca-
ure 1). The most widely recognized in- demic institutions.
formational service was the interlibrary The findings also revealed the relative
borrowing activity, with an awareness degree to which the various colleges suc-
response of 85 percent. The least widely ceeded in communicating the availabil-
recognized of the available services was ity of the services they claimed to offer:
the educational service of providing each library had special success in com-
reference source lists tailored to specific municating certain services. Table 4 in-
class requirements ( 17 percent) and the dicates that College A, with the highest
informational service of answering M.A.S., ranked from first to fourth
questions that require a search for the among the colleges with respect to
answer ( 22 percent). Other services awareness of individual services. Col-
ranged widely between the extremes. lege F, with the lowest M.A.S., in one
One variable which accounted for case achieved a tie for a highest aware-
some of the observed variation seems to ness ranking, and it ranked second in
be level of faculty need. Many faculty awareness for another service. College
feel a more intimate need for the ser- B, with the second highest M.A.S.,
vice of interlibrary borrowing than for ranked sixth in four of the eleven cate-
lists of reference sources tailored to gories. This information seems to sug-
specific classes for student use, and they gest that the libraries tended to empha-
inform themselves accordingly. Uni- size various categories of service. Facul-
versality of demand for a service and ty members at College A were particu-
the ease with which it can be provided larly aware of all the services that fell
also seem to affect awareness. Advice and into the category of providing informa-
assistance in the use of the library rates tion. Its library and reference staff seem
high on both counts. to have been active in promoting what
Moreover, a combination of poor Rothstein has called a maximum level
communication with a low level of ref- of reference service. 10
ence activity seems to lower awareness The survey also furnished informa-
of some services. Self-evident services tion about faculty attitudes toward the.
(see Table 3) -advice and assistance in utility of the services listed. Respon-
library use, interlibrary borrowing, and dents were asked to indicate the degree
the distribution of library handbooks to which they considered each service to
and bulletins-maintain a higher be desirable, whether they thought the
M.A.S. than do services which require service was currently available or not.
some deliberate act of communication, A majority of respondents expressed a
either as a request for information by favorable attitude toward each of the
the faculty or as an announcement of available services (see Table 5). Faculty
availability by the library. Although lev- members were least likely to react favor-
el of need, universality of demand, and ably to the specialized information ser-
ease of provision, complicate the effect vices not currently being offered by the
of this distinction by communication, libraries on a regular basis, and toward
the evidence furnishes at least minimal the provision of lists of reference
support for the inference that as an act sources for their classes. Marginal com-
of communication becomes more of a ments appended to some questionnaires
requirement, knowledge of the avail- further explained the nature of facul-
 272 I College & Research Libraries • September 1973

I I I I I I l I I I

Advice and Assistance in Library Use I

Handbooks and Bulletins I
Specialized Instruction in Use of the Library I
Reference
Sources
I
Bibliographies for
Distribution
Answer to Factual Question I
Answer to Factual Question
-Phone J
Answer Requiring!
a Search
Search Outside the Library
Vertical Files
Interlibrary Borrowing I
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig. 1
Overall Faculty Awareness of Eleven Available Services ( N = 694)

TABLE 3
CLASSIFICATION OF REFERENCE SERviCES BY MoDE OF CoMMUNICATION

Level of
Classification of Service Category of Service Awareness

SELF-EVIDENT SERVICES %
Basic Services Advice and Assistance in the Use of the Library 95
Interlibrary Borrowing Service 85
Services Made Self-Evident by
Distribution at Library Service Library Bulletins and Handbooks 74
Points Bibliographies for General Distribution 38
SERVICES WHICH MAY OR Maintenance of Pamphlet and Other Vertical
MAY NOT BE SELF-EVIDENT Files 40
SERVICES WHICH REQUIRE AN Library Instruction for Classes 65
ACT OF COMMUNICATION TO Answer to a Factual Question 61
ANNOUNCE THEIR AVAILABILITY Answer Requiring Information from Outside
the Library 40
Answer to a Factual Question-Phone 36
Answer Requiring a Search 22
Lists of Reference Sources for Specific Classes 17

ty objections to certain services. The ob- agree on all the above cshoulds' if the
jections centered around two points. ( 1) budget were no problem." c'If I were to
Several respondents considered the ques- complete this questionnaire to reflect my
tion of the cost versus the potential ben- desires rather than my realistic assess-
efit of specialized services. c'I could ment of the current library and budget-
 Faculty Awareness and Attitudes I 273
I
TABLE 4
AwARENESS OF INDIVIDUAL SERVICES-BY COLLEGE

By Rank By Percentage
Over-
Service A B c D E F A B c D E F all

., % % % % % % %
Advice and Assistance 0 2 1 5 3 6 95 96 97 93 95 90 95
Bulletins and Handbooks 4 3 1 5 6 1 64 82 85 63 59 85 74
Library Instruction for Classes 1 5 3 6 2 4 74 59 70 58 71 60 65
Lists of Reference Sources for Classes 4 5 2 3 1 5 16 13 20 18 21 13 17
Bibliographies for Distribution 3 1 6 5 4 2 31 60 25 27 28 53 38
Answer to a Factual Question 1 6 3 2 4 4 76 53 58 68 55 55 61
Answer to a Factual Question-Phone 1 6 5 4 2 3 48 28 34 36 39 37 36
Answer Requiring a Search 1 6 3 5 2 4 37 16 21 19 24 20 22
Answer Requiring Information from
Outside the Library 1 6 2 3 5 4 60 33 38 37 34 35 40
Vertical Files 1 2 3 3 5 6 48 46 41 41 26 25· 40
Interlibrary Borrowing 1 2 5 3 3 6 96 87 80 83 83 75 85

TABLE 5
.. SuMMARY OF ATTITUDE REsPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL SERVICES ( N = 668)

Favorable Unfavorable No
Classification Service Attitude Attitude Response

% % %
Education-General Advice and Assistance 89 1 10
Bulletins and Handbooks 87 5 8
Education-Special Library Instruction for Classes 81 10 9
Lists of Reference Sources for Classes 54 38 8
Bibliographies for Distribution 66 26 8
Information-Materials Vertical Files 70 20 10
Interlibrary Borrowing 89 2 9
Information-Questions Answer to a Factual Question 81 11 8
Answer to a Factual Question-Phone 71 21 8
. Answer Requiring a Search 60 31 9
Answer Requiring Information from 77 14 9
Outside the Library
Information-Special Demand Bibliographies (not regularly 45 48 7
available)
Literature Search (not regularly available) 43 50 7

ary situation . . ." "I would like to have work conducted by library reference
these services, but when it comes to people as being complete... .''
money to pay for them, I would rather Despite these kinds of reservations,
put the money into other things. . . ." however, the number of people who ap-
( 2) Others questioned the capability of proved of a service was larger than the
the librarian to satisfy their serious in- number who had known the service was
formation needs. "I feel only the user already available for every service ex-
can discriminate and select.'' "The re- cept the basic activity of providing as-
searcher should be (looking up specific sistance in the use of the library. The
questions) for he has the judgment to minimal inference to be drawn from
interpret the information." "I this is that for nearly every service,
would not trust any bibliographic . . . there were individuals who desired the
 274 I College & Research Libraries • September 1973

service without knowing that it was al- vice. Furthermore, it was more success-
ready being offered. ful in bringing to the attention of the
faculty those services requiring commu-
SuMMARY AND CoNCLUSION nication to be announced. Follow-up in-
This study demonstrates that the aver- terviews indicated that College A librar-
age faculty member who responded to ians were the most active of the group
the questionnaire was aware of only 50 in book selection and collection develop-
percent of the reference services avail- ment, and both librarians and faculty
able to him from his college library. interviewees agreed that this was an im-
Variables of academic rank, length of portant common concern. Both faculty
service at the college, service on commit- members and librarians from College
tees dealing with library affairs, and A spoke enthusiastically of a tradition
amount of library and reference use of public service that had been promot-
were all related directly to degree of ed by the library administration from '~
awareness. Slll'Drisipg~sts the time the college had been founded. I
showed a relatively low level of aware- Finally, librarians from College A
ness. n tive estimates of potential seemed to display a higher degree of ,j
friends for the library among members personal initiative than did other librar-
of the faculty have usually rated social ians in establishing and in maintaining
scientists highly. 11 Follow-up interviews contact with faculty members.
.j
with a small sample of respondents did Although College A did appear to be
suggest that social scientists tended to most effective in promoting awareness
be more critical of librarians' perform- for the low visibility services, certain
1
ance than were faculty members from services were still not well known at any
the humanities; it was not clear, how- of the colleges, particularly those ser-
ever, whether their dissatisfaction re- vices surpassing the superficial and the
sulted from a higher level of informa- commonplace. This low level of aware-
tion need and expectation or whether ness has partially been a product of a
librarians actually performed less com- low level of library activity in providing
petently in the area of the social sci- specific services energetically on a day-
ences. to-day basis. Also, low awareness has
Although academic libraries which probably been the result of a low level
are closely related in mission and in re- of faculty confidence in the competence
source allocation might tend to define of librarians. With emphasis on the low
and to execute their responsibilities in awareness services, it seems that librar-
similar fashion, an exceptional institu- ians have not realized the potential
tion, with the same resources and con- available to them for communication
straints, may demonstrate the capacity and for consistent and confident per-
to discharge its defined responsibilities formance.
with greater effectiveness. In this case, Given the range of responsibilities of
the library of College A indicated a spe- many academic reference librarians,
cial capacity for successful communica- such realization is no easy task. The
tion with the faculty, a capacity that problem is complicated by those aca-
cannot be explained simply in terms of demic library administrators who have
greater resources. The analysis of aware- assigned low priority to questions of
ness of individual services (Table 4) in- communication, and even to questions
dicated that the library of College A of public service, in their genuine (and
was also more successful than others in justified) concern for the acquisition
promoting information services requir- and organization of the masses of in-
ing maximum level of reference ser- formation that are currently threaten-
J
 Faculty Awareness and Attitudes I 275
.
ing to overwhelm us. The result seems tive in using more library resources to
to be that some academic libraries are promote available services as well as to
slighting a share of their responsibility provide them consistently, competently,
to the individual client who is the ulti- and vigorously. A first step should be to
mate rationale for most of the library's establish channels to communicate the
activities. availability of services to the faculty.
In this study, the faculty has indicat- The principal burden of responsibility
ed that it desires a full range of ser- for that communication resides with the
vices. If the library is to maintain and academic library and its corps of librari-
enlarge services, librarians must be pre- ans.
pared and encouraged to exercise initia-

REFERENCES

1. Patricia B. Knapp, College Teaching and have been because of complications intro-
the College Library (Chicago: American duced by the two services on the list not
Library Association, 1959), p.93 ( ACRL regularly offered by the libraries. It is like-
Monograph No. 23). ly that some respondents did receive those
2. - - , The Monteith CoUege Library Ex- services on an individual basis and were
periment (New York: Scarecrow Press, therefore justified in providing an affirma-
1966)' p.30-32. tive answer with respect to them. A retabu-
3. Florence De Hart, "The Application of lation excluding responses to the two ser-
Special Library Services and Techniques vices in question produced an overall
to the College Library," CRL 27:152 M.A.S. or just over 50 percent ( M.A.S. =
(March 1966). 5.8 on a scale of 0-11 ).
4. Anne W. Schumacher, A Small College In- 10. Rothstein, "Reference Service: The New
formation System: An Analysis and Rec- Dimension in Librarianship," in Reference
ommendations (St. Paul: Hamline Univer- Services ( Hamden, Conn.: Shoestring
sity, 1968), p.III-2. Press, 1964), p.40.
5. Lawrence E. Leonard, et al., Centralized 11. See, for example, Knapp's recent suggestion
Book Processing: A Feasibility Study that social scientists might be singled out
Based on Colorado Academic Libraries as being particularly sympathetic toward
(Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1969), working with librarians to provide educa-
p.220. tion in the use of the library for students.
6. A. Venable Lawson, Reference Service in She suggests that many social sciences rely
University Libraries: Two Case Studies heavily on the library as a source for data
(Dissertation, Columbia University, 1969), and they also do not often have indepen-
p.293. dent programs for developing library com-
7. The original sample of 112 faculty mem- petence for their students. Knapp, "The Li-
bers no longer qualified as part of the sur- brary, the Undergraduate and the Teaching
vey population, usually because they had Faculty," a paper presented at an Institute
left the college during the preceding year. on Training for Service in Undergraduate
8. All tests of statistical significance were car- Libraries, sponsored by the University Li-
ried out at an alpha level of .05. brary, University of California, San Diego,
9. This finding is less conclusive than it might August 17-21, 1970. Available from ERIC
(Ed 042 475).