1 / 25

Measuring Value and Outcomes of Reading by Dr. Carol Tenopir

This study by Dr. Carol Tenopir explores various methods for measuring the value and outcomes of reading. It includes surveys, interviews, observations, and experiments to provide a comprehensive understanding of reading patterns and their impact. The study also highlights the return on investment and perceptions of reading in different contexts.

jblass
Download Presentation

Measuring Value and Outcomes of Reading by Dr. Carol Tenopir

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring Value and Outcomes of Reading Dr. Carol TenopirUniversity of Tennesseectenopir@utk.edu Fiesole April 2010

  2. Usage Citations Focus groups Return on Investment Perceptions Experiments Critical incident Contingent valuation Observations Conjoint measurement Interviews Methods for measuring value

  3. Critical Incident Technique • Surveys by Tenopir and King (1977-present) • Ask respondents about most recent reading • Ask questions on purpose, motivation and outcomes of specific reading • In-depth picture of complexity of readings

  4. Critical Incident “The following questions in this section refer to the SCHOLARLY ARTICLE YOU READ MOST RECENTLY, even if you had read the article previously. Note that this last reading may not be typical, but will help us establish the range of patterns in reading.”

  5. Research 9% Teaching 11% Current 9% 51% Awareness Proposals 20% Other Principal Purpose of Reading(Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2006, n=1433)

  6. Source of reading by purpose of reading by faculty(Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2005, n=1412) Research Teaching Current Awareness

  7. Format of articles read by science faculty(Faculty in U.S., n=727)

  8. Print or Electronic (Faculty in US, 2000-2006, n=923) Electronic 15 % 24 % Print 76 % 85 % 30% Library-Provided Personal Subscriptions 70 % Other

  9. Library E-Collections are Most Common Source of Additional Readings Library collection Other

  10. Readings for Research • More likely to be rated “absolutely essential” • More likely to be found by searching • More likely to be from e-sources • More likely to be from the library

  11. Value of Reading in Order of Frequency of Responses (Faculty in U.S., n=880) • Inspired new thinking/ideas (55%) • Improved results (40%) • Changed focus (27%) • Resolved technical problems (12%) • Saved time (12%) • Faster completion ( 7% ) • Collaboration ( 6% ) • Wasted my time ( <1%)

  12. Comments (2008) tell us that E-Collections improve… • Efficiency and productivity “[e-access] saves me a lot of time which can be used for more extensive reading.” • Writing and proposals “[E-access] is essential for scientific writing.” • Research and teaching “I could not do the kind of research or teaching I do without these resources.”

  13. Average number of articles read annually by publishing productivity (number of articles published in the past 2 years)(Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2005, n=1364)

  14. Principal purpose of reading by publishing productivity (number of articles published in the past 2 years)(Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2005, n=1366)

  15. Proportion of readings that contain information that is rated as absolutely essential to the principal purpose

  16. Proportion of readings that contain information that is rated as absolutely essential to the principal purpose

  17. National differences • Faculty in Finland access articles more at the office or lab, less at home • Faculty in Australia have the highest amounts of e-reading and report a significant amount (6.7%) of readings done while travelling • Finnish scholars report a higher use of searching in locating e-articles • Faculty in Taiwan, Japan and Finland have a higher percentage of readings from the library Carol Tenopir

  18. Return on Investment (ROI) ROI is a quantitative measure expressed as a ratio of the value returned to the institution for each monetary unit invested in the library. For every $/€/£ spent on the library,the university received ‘X’ $/€/£ in return. Demonstrate that library collections contribute to income-generating activities

  19. ROI Model for University of Illinois (Phase 1) $4.38 grant income for each $1.00 invested in library (% of faculty who rated citations in proposals from library as important to the proposal x % of proposals funded / library budget)

  20. Phase 2: Value of E-journals in Grants8 institutions in 8 countries

  21. Phase 2: Findings Research and Teaching • Under 1:1 Research and Teaching STM/Hum/SS • 1.3:1 to 3.4:1

  22. Phase 2: Why Does ROI of E-journals in Grants Vary? ROI depends on institutional mission Research institutes have very large grants Teaching universities have smaller and fewer grants ROI varies depending on methods of government funding Be cautious comparing ROI across institutions Phase 3 will expand scope

  23. Some Final Thoughts on Measuring Value • Measure purposes and outcomes • Variations in value by purpose • No one method stands alone • Measures show the contribution of articles to scholarship

  24. For further information… • Tenopir, C. (2009). University Investment in the Library, Phase II: An International Study of the Library’s Value to the Grants Process. Report prepared for Elsevier LibraryConnect.

  25. For further information… • Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S., Wu, L. (2008). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings, 61 (1), 5-32. • Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Spencer, J., Wu, L. (2009). Variations in article seeking and reading patterns of academics: What makes a difference?. Library & Information Science Research, doi 10.1016.

More Related