Mega Database Review: How to Have What You Want and Want What You Have

1. Mega Database Review: How to Have What You Want and Want What You Have MLA Conference | October 6, 2010 Mary Anne Erwin, MLS & Emily Scharf, MALS Instruction & Liaison Services | Webster University Library

2. Today we will discuss • A comprehensive review of databases used at Webster University by 12,000 students around the US and overseas. • Explain the review process, talk about successes, what we would do differently and the outcomes of this review.

3. A word about public institutions • Webster University does not have to bid for our databases • This review can also work for public institutions Photo credit: Flickr user beautifulcataya 9/8/09

4. Why did we do this? Photo credit: Flickr user alexanderdrachmann 4/13/06

5. Background • Instruction & Liaison Services Department creation • New staff member in charge of databases

6. Special Projects - 4 Year Cycle • 2010 – Database review • 2011 – Weed main collection • 2012 – Journal review • 2013 – Standing orders/weed reference collection

7. Goal • Do our databases support the current curriculum? • No mandate to cancel – only review

8. Who participated? • Library administration • Subject Liaisons • Faculty • Faculty, students and staff via Library satisfaction survey • Reference Librarians • Entire library staff • Some Library student workers • Faculty Development Center staff

9. Library Administration • Shared goals • Communication • Support

10. Subject Liaisons & Reference

11. Faculty (staff & students) • Faculty contacted at discretion of their subject liaison • Subject & related databases • Library’s user satisfaction survey - Spring 2010 Please rate your satisfaction with library materials. __Very Satisfied __ Satisfied __Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied __Dissatisfied __Very Dissatisfied __N/A • Access to online materials (e.g., databases, full-text journals, ebooks) • Quality of online materials

12. Reference Librarians • Reviewed 8 databases • E.g. Credo Reference and Gale Virtual Reference Library • Communicated with the subject reviewers regarding subject databases • WWWDD (What Would We Do Differently?) • Sought their input in a more formal way, earlier in the process • Perhaps ask which databases they use and why

13. Library Staff Survey • 38 general/multi-disciplinary databases • Academic Search Premier • WorldCat

14. Process/Procedure Photo credit: Flickr user YSPsculpture 5/6/10

15. Procedure • Databases assigned to liaisons by subject • A master list was made to store all info • Reviewers completed a review sheet for each database and gave databases a rating from 1-4 • Library staff survey • Liaison meeting • Management team meeting

16. Master List • Database Name • Vendor • Liaison • 2008 Proxy Server Stats • 2009 Proxy Server Stats • 2009 Pricing Info • Check with... • In federated search now? • Scoped for federated search? • Subscription End Date • Ok to renew early? • Explanation for cancelation/keep • Reviewer's Rating (1-4) • Link to review sheet • Liaison Meeting Rating • Savings ($) • Notes

17. Rating System • Started with a scale of 1 – 5 • After discussion, ended up with 1 – 4 scale • Ratings: • 1 = Cancel • 2 = Questionable, Cancel If______ • 3 = Important, Fills Niche • 4 = Essential • WWWDD: only one “4” rating per subject

18. Sample Comments and Ratings • Rating : 1, Cancel Books in Print“…it does not seem worth the money to keep a resource that mostly replicates other information and whose usage has dropped by half in the last year (2008 to 2009).” • Rating: 2, Cancel If… Kids Search“Due to the incongruent nature of this database (a kid-friendly interface that is searching advanced article databases), I would recommend we cancel this if we ever needed to pay for it.”

19. Rating: 3, Important, Fills Niche CQ Researcher“It is a valuable resource due to its background information and breadth of content types. …we have no comparable resource online.” • Rating: 4, Essential JSTOR“Since this is a digital archive of scholarly journals, many historical articles are available in full-text that may not be available in full-text through other databases.”

20. Review Sheet • Some categories on this sheet were transferred to our master list • Each reviewer had two months to review their assigned databases • Sample review (for a 1 database)

21. Surveys • Library Staff – General/Multidisciplinary DBs • 34 responses • 27 of 40 full & PT staff • 7 Student workers • WWWDD?

22. Library Staff Survey – Results • Academic Search Premier • Most highly rated database • 69% of respondents rated it “4 – essential” • Books in Print • Lowest rated database • 35% of those with an opinion rated it “1 – cancel” • 22% rated it a “4 – essential” • What we learned from (a) student and faculty

23. Process/Procedure - Finale • Liaison meeting • Management Team meeting • Submitted list of databases recommended for cancellation • Approved!

24. Results • Cancelled 15 databases • Saved/reallocated $60,000 • Plus reduced acquisition, training & maintenance costs • Afforded new databases • Ready answers for questions as they arise • MOREnet • Stat-USA

25. What we learned/gained • Focus on best DBs for our users = have what you want • Confidence in/knowledge of our DBs = want what you have • Instruction Opportunities • Library staff were unsure/no opinion about 53% of our databases • Summer Learning Series

26. Contact Us • Mary Anne Erwinmaerwin@webster.edu(314) 246-7841 • Emily Scharfemilyscharf99@webster.edu(314) 246-7818 library.webster.edu

27. Questions? Photo credit: Flickr user Oberazzi 12/9/06