Scholarly Reading by Faculty in the United States: Summary
Results of a Study Conducted in 2012 in Five Universities
Carol Tenopir, Rachel Volentine, and Lisa Christian
Center for Information and Communication Studies
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Spring 2013
Funding by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
Contents
Executive Summary and Key Findings ……………………………………………………… 3
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Previous Studies …………………………………………………………………………... 7
Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………... 9
Demographics of Respondents ……………………………………………………………….. 12
Scholarly Journal Article Reading …………………………………………………………… 23
Difference of Article Reading Patterns by Demographics ………………………… 44
Scholarly Book Reading ………………………………………………………………………… 62
Difference of Book Reading Patterns by Demographics ………………………….. 74
Other Scholarly Publication Reading ……………………………………………………... 84
Difference of Other Publication Reading Patterns by Demographics ……….. 94
Social Media: Participation and Creation ………………………………………………. 105
Open Ended Questions ………………………………………………………………………… 119
Role of Library Collections …………………………………………………………………… 149
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 155
Copy of Survey ……………………………………………………………………………………. 160
2
Executive Summary
The Lib-Value project measures the value, outcomes, and return on investment of
academic library collections and services. This report measures the value of the library
collections by examining the scholarly reading patterns of faculty members in the United
States and comparing their use of the library with other sources for scholarly materials.
Starting in February 2012 through October 2012, faculty members at five
universities in the United States were invited to participate in a survey of their scholarly
reading behavior. We received 837 responses from a total faculty population of 11,332 for
an overall response rate of 7.4%. Any conclusions must be made cautiously due to this low
response rate. The survey asked questions about reading of articles, books, and other
scholarly materials from all sources (library-provided, other sources, and social media),
and focused on use value (outcomes of reading) and exchange value (time spent obtaining
and reading).
Important findings include:
•
Over half (54%) of article readings by United States faculty respondents are
obtained from a library or school/department subscription, and 93% of
those obtained through a library or a school or department collection are
•
from electronic collections.
While faculty members prefer electronic resources to obtain information,
print is still a popular means for reading. Just over half (51%) of article
readings are read on-screen, while nearly as many (48%) are read on print•
on-paper. Just 8% of book readings are ebooks.
•
read more articles, books, and other publications.
•
library (22%).
Faculty who received awards and published more items in the last two years
Faculty purchase books (39%) more often than they obtain them through the
The majority of article readings (52%) are for the principal purpose of
research, while book readings are for research (41%) and teaching (34%);
other publications (such as reports, government documents, magazine
3
articles, or conference proceedings) are read more for current awareness
•
(34%) and research (29%).
Faculty members participate in social media more than they create it;
however, their use and creation is more often occasional rather than on a
•
regular basis.
•
more articles, books, and other publications.
•
members recognize their value in inspiring new ideas.
Faculty who participate or create content for social media tools are reading
Social media has not replaced traditional articles and books, although faculty
United States faculty members on average spend 121 hours per year of their
work time with library-provided material, or the equivalent of 15 eight-hour
days annually.
4
Introduction
The project in context: previous studies and methodology
5
In an age of continually growing digitization, globalization, and abundant
information, the value of scholarly information remains high to support the work of faculty
members. Scholarly material adds value to the quality of their work and guides their future
research. Academics now have many choices of where and how to access scholarly articles,
books, or other materials. Time, cost, and electronic availability are all factors in their
decisions of which materials to select, and by providing the highest-quality material in a
convenient manner, the library can ensure they are receiving the best material. This study
seeks to answer broad questions such as: Why do faculty members read scholarly materials
and do reading patterns vary according to purpose of reading, source of reading, or
individual characteristics of readers such as academic discipline, status, or age? What is
the role and value of the college and university library in providing access to scholarly
content in this changing digital landscape?
The Value, Outcome, and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries project (Lib-
Value) is a three-year study funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
Part of the project seeks to measure the value of the library’s provision of access to
scholarly materials by examining scholarly reading patterns and comparing use patterns of
the library-provided resources with the use of scholarly materials accessed from other
sources. Faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduate students were studied at
several universities. This report focuses on the results from the survey of faculty members
from all US universities surveyed.
The Lib-Value project is led by a research team at the University of Tennessee, the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), Syracuse University, and the
Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
6
Previous Studies
Scholarly reading patterns and information-seeking behavior have been examined
through surveys over the past thirty-five years. In 1977 and 1984, national surveys of
scientists in the United States were conducted (King et al. 1981). The surveys have been
conducted regularly in non-university settings since 1984. The first readership survey to
be conducted solely in a university setting was completed in 1993 (Belefant-Miller and
King 2001). In 2000, the surveys shifted to focus on changing patterns of journal use, due
to e-journal publishing, and have been repeated in the U.S., Australia, Japan, and Finland
(Tenopir et al. 2010). The surveys found that the increasing prevalence and availability of
e-articles encouraged academics to read more articles, though the time spent reading each
publication decreased. In the case of United States and Finland, academics who read more
articles published more works. However, although Australian academics reported the most
e-reading, their reading patterns did not demonstrate a correlation between e-reading
amounts and publication. In addition, researchers noted that all academics reported
several reasons for readings and varied methods for discovering articles. In 2011, a
reading survey was conducted at six United Kingdom higher learning institutions, which
includes sections on reading from books and other publications and questions on use of
social media (Tenopir et al. 2012).
Tenopir and King (2000) and King and Tenopir (2001) summarize reading patterns
of science and non-science faculty members through the 1990s. They provide extensive
literature reviews and serve as background for the data presented in this report. Other
multi-university studies focus on how faculty uses electronic journals, online resources,
7
and libraries (Healy et al. 2002). Further studies show that access and convenience,
especially electronic access, are important to academic faculty (Maughan 1999). Other
studies show the huge impact subject discipline has on reading patterns (Talja and Maula
2003), and different disciplines have varying traditions of the importance of journals
compared to other types of information (Fry and Talja 2004). In addition, faculty members
in the sciences prefer and read more electronic journal articles than in humanities or social
science disciplines (Brown 2003). The results from the U.S. and Australia in 2012 tend to
confirm the earlier findings. A 2011 study by the Research Information Network (RIN)
found a link between the library and the institution’s research performance.
Many recent studies have reported on the future of e-books in academia. A report
by CIBER (2009) found that nearly two-thirds of teaching staff and students in the United
Kingdom have used an e-book to support their work or study or for leisure purposes, and
more than half of users said the last e-book they used was provided by their university
library. A study at the Health Sciences Library System at Pittsburgh University discovered
that over half the surveyed faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students used
library provided e-books for their job duties, and it concluded that respondents are willing
to use alternative formats (Folb et al. 2011). Another study at the University of Illinois in
2008 shows that faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students value the
convenience and time saving capabilities this format offers them, as well as the ability to
search full-text content of e-books, but there are still disadvantages with its format on the
screen (Shelburne 2009). Many other studies have reported similar findings, showing that
e-books are becoming a valuable library resource (Chrzastowski 2011; Tenopir et al.
2012).
8
A report by CIBER on the use of social media in the research environment found that
social media have found applications in the research process, and the most popular tools
are those for collaborative authoring, conferencing, and scheduling meetings (Rowlands et
al. 2011). The report did not find age to be a good predictor on social media use, but
humanists and social scientists used more social media. It concludes social media do not
replace traditional material.
Methodology
Earlier surveys examined just the reading of scholarly articles, but for this survey
we expanded it to examine the reading of scholarly books and book chapters and the use
and creation of social media. The survey maintained a consistent core of questions and
maintained similar questions in each section in order to compare the survey results over
time. The questions are based on two principal sections—reader-related (demographics)
and reading-related. Reader-related questions focus on the demographics of the
respondent; the questions include age, gender, percentage of work time spent on various
activities, number of personal subscriptions, and two measures of recent academic
success—publication record and record of recent awards.
The reading-related questions mostly use the critical incident technique first
developed by Flanagan (1954). The critical incident technique has since been applied to
many contexts, including libraries and readings (Radford 2006; Andrews 1991). The
survey used the last scholarly reading as the “critical” incident of reading (Griffiths and
King 1991). By asking about a specific most recent reading, respondents should have a
better memory of that reading, rather than having to reflect back on multiple readings over
a longer period of time. While the last reading may not be representative of a typical
9
reading, it allows us to find details and patterns of reading and use. The questions cover
many details of that reading, including time spent on the reading, source of reading,
purpose of reading, and value of the reading to the purpose. A complete survey instrument
is found in the appendix of this report.
Starting in February 2012 through October 2012, an e-mail message was sent by
librarians to approximately 11,332 faculty members at five universities in the United States
(Table 1). The message included an embedded link to a survey housed on the University of
Tennessee’s server. By the last closing date of January 9, 2013, we received 837 responses
to the first question for a response rate of 7.4%. 1
Table 1. Response Rates of Participating US Institutions
Institution
Responses
Seton Hall University
Syracuse University
University of Colorado
University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign
University of
Tennessee, Knoxville
84
201
91
Total
Academic
Staff
446
1513
3514
68
2884
393
2975
Response Rate
18.8%
13.3%
2.6%
13.2%
3.7%
The low response rate may make it hard to generalize across the population, and
while our results are not weighted, since we asked demographic questions and know the
total population demographic characteristics for some of the questions (age, gender, and
discipline, for example), responses and subsequent analysis could be weighted in the
future. Weighting the results may help improve the generalizability of the responses. Since
respondents were allowed to leave the survey at any time, skip questions, or were timed
out automatically if they began the questionnaire and did not complete it, most of the
1
Assumes all invitations were sent to valid and active email addresses.
10
questions have a lower number of responses. All respondents for a particular question
equal 100% for that question. The survey was comprised of four sections: Journal Article
Reading, Book Reading, Other Publication Reading, and Demographic Information.
11
Demographics of Respondents
12
Work Responsibilities
Academics at the five US universities spend the most work time on research and
writing. Table 2 reflects this, showing faculty members spend just over one third (35%)
their time on teaching. Teaching and service (to the department, college, and wider
community) also take up large percentages of work time (30% and 17% respectively).
Table 2. Percentage of Work Time Spent by US Faculty Respondents
Teaching
Research
& writing
Administrative
Service
Consulting
/advising
30.23
30
0
10
30
45
34.48
30
40
20
30
50
15.90
5
0
0
5
20
16.64
10
10
5
10
20
8.47
5
0
0
5
10
Mean
Median
Mode
Percentiles 25
50
75
Other
6.36
0
0
0
0
5
Academic Discipline
Twenty-one percent of the respondents are in the social sciences, 18% are in the
humanities, and 9% are in the life sciences (Table 3A). We collapsed the disciplines into six
categories for analysis (Table 3B) and redistributed the “other” disciplines into a
corresponding category. Psychology, business, and education were combined with social
sciences. Computer science, mathematics, and engineering were combined; life and
physical sciences were combined, and humanities and fine arts were combined. The
remaining “other” disciplines are disciplines that did not clearly fit into one of the larger
categories (i.e., “Management/Leadership” and “Child and Family Studies”).
13
Table 3A. Academic Disciplines of US Faculty Respondents
Life sciences
Physical sciences
Medical science
Computer Science
Mathematics
Engineering
Social sciences
Business
Psychology
Education
Humanities
Fine Arts
Law
Other
Total
Frequency
53
52
34
20
18
34
123
24
17
41
107
24
11
34
592
Percent
9.0
8.8
5.7
3.4
3.0
5.7
20.8
4.1
2.9
6.9
18.1
4.1
1.9
5.7
100.0
Table 3B. Academic Disciplines of US Faculty Respondents (Grouped)
Sciences
Medical Sciences
Engineering/Technology/Math
Social Sciences
Humanities
Others
Total
Frequency
105
34
72
216
131
34
592
Percent
17.7
5.7
12.2
36.5
22.1
5.7
100.0
Position, Age, and Gender
Thirty-six percent of the respondents are professors (Table 4). “Other” statuses
include an archaeological collections specialist, author, consultant, advisor, IT professional,
project coordinator, software developer, and visiting scholar.
14
Table 4. Academic Position of US Faculty Respondents
Frequency
Percent
Professor
145
24.7
Associate Professor
122
20.7
Assistant Professor
124
21.1
Instructor / Lecturer
36
6.1
Adjunct
28
4.8
Other
133
22.6 (100.0)
(41)
(30.8)
• Academic Staff /
Professional/Admin
(4)
(3.0)
• Graduate Student
(49)
(36.8)
• Research Associate /
Post Doctoral
(39)
(29.3)
• Other
Total
588
100.0
The respondents’ ages range from eighteen to one hundred years of age. For
analysis we grouped the ages by decade (Table 5). Over a quarter of the respondents are in
their thirties, forties, and fifties. Just 18% are over 60 years of age, and 7% in their
twenties.
Table 5. Age Range of US Faculty Respondents
Under 30
31-40
41-50
51-60
Over 60
Total
Frequency
38
149
138
146
102
573
Percent
6.6
26.0
24.1
25.5
17.8
100.0
There are some variations between the respondent’s age and their academic
position (χ2=223.866, p<.0001). Over three-quarters (78%) professors are over fifty years
of age, with 41% over sixty years. Sixty-nine percent of associate professors, one quarter of
instructors/lecturers, 21% of assistant professors and 18% of adjuncts are in their forty
years of age. No professors or associate professors are under 30 years of age. Over half
15
(58%) of assistant professors, and just over one-third (36%) of instructors/lecturers are in
their thirties.
Half (50.3%) of the respondents are male (293 of 582) and half are female (49.7%,
289). The medical sciences, social sciences and humanities are primarily female, while the
majority of respondents in the sciences and engineering/technology fields are male (Table
6).
Table 6. Gender of US Faculty Respondents by Discipline
Male
68
64.8%
Medical Sciences 7
21.2%
Engineering/
56
Technology/Math 81.2%
Social Sciences
94
43.9%
Humanities
60
46.5%
Others
8
25.0%
Column Total
293
50.3%
Female
37
35.2%
26
78.7%
13
18.8%
120
56.1%
69
53.5%
24
75.0%
289
49.7%
Sciences
Row Total
105
100.0%
33
100.0%
69
100.0%
214
100.0%
129
100.0%
32
100.0%
582
100.0%
Sixty-nine percent of the professors, 61% of the adjuncts 49% of
instructors/lecturers, 42% of associate professors, and 40% of assistant professors are
male. Sixty percent of assistant and associate professors, 51% of the instructors/lecturers,
and 31% of the professors are female.
A majority of respondents over sixty years of age are male (68%). However, women
faculty outnumber men in other age groups. Fifty-four percent of faculty in their thirties,
53% in their forties, 52% in their fifties, and 51% under thirty years of age are women.
16
Productivity as Measured by Authorship and Awards
Authorship has been used as a measure of productivity in past surveys of research
universities and in non-university research settings. Over the years it has been shown that
faculty who publish more journal articles tend to read more (King et al. 2003). Sixty-nine
percent of the respondents published at least one refereed scholarly journal article in the
past two years (Table 7). Fewer have published an entire book (15%), but 48% have
published a chapter in a book and 30% in a conference proceeding. Taking all these
methods of publication together, the average faculty member published six items in the
past two years and 78% of the respondents have published at least one scholarly item in
the past two years (Table 8).
17
Table 7. Number of Items Published in the Last 2 Years by US Faculty Respondents
Frequency
Percentage
Refereed Scholarly Journals
554
100.0
0
172
31.0
1~2
189
34.1
3~4
86
15.5
>4
107
19.3
Non-Refereed Journals
504
100.0
0
303
60.1
1~2
135
26.8
3~4
32
6.3
>4
34
6.7
Chapters in Books
530
100.0
0
276
52.1
1~2
203
38.3
3~4
33
6.2
>4
18
3.4
Conference Proceedings, etc.
404
100.0
0
283
70.0
1~2
62
15.3
3~4
31
7.7
>4
28
6.9
Entire Books
487
100.0
0
416
85.4
1~2
68
14.0
>2
3
0.6
Table 8. Total Numbers of Publications in the Last 2 Years by US Faculty Respondents
0
1-2
3-4
5-10
11-20
Over 20
Total
Frequency
81
66
67
108
39
12
373
18
Percent
21.7
17.7
18.0
29.0
10.5
3.2
100.0
Discipline significantly influences the number of total publications (F=1.518,
p=.182). Respondents in the medical sciences (M=7.06) and
engineering/technology/mathematics (M=6.92) published more material in the past two
years. Scientists published an average of seven items (M=662) in the past two years, while
humanists published five items (M=5.10). Social scientists published the least amount of
items (M=4.65). Faculty in engineering/technology disciplines and scientists published
more refereed journal articles (Mengineer=4.52, Msciences=4.33), while medical scientists
published an average of four articles, social scientists published an average of two articles
and humanists published one. All disciplines average less than one entire book publication
in the past two years, but social scientists (M=1.28) and humanists (M=1.13) are more
likely to publish a book chapter.
Older respondents are more likely to have published more in the last two years
(p=.048). Respondents over 50 years of age published an average of seven items in the
past two years (M=6.50), while respondents under 50 published five items (M=5.02). The
differences between number of publications and age may be a result of academic position
because the positions, which have older respondents, publish more material (F=6.238,
p<.0001). Professors published the most material (M=8.52), followed by associate
professors (M=6.17), assistant professors (M=5.97), adjuncts (M=5.58), and
instructors/lecturers (M=1.68).
Another measure of productivity is whether a respondent has received awards or
recognition for their work. We asked respondents whether they received any awards or
recognition in the past two years, and then prompted them to describe their award. Thirtyone percent of respondents received an award (180 of 579). The awards and recognitions
19
included awards for teaching (e.g., teaching excellence), awards for research (e.g., best
paper), awards for dissertations, service awards and “other” awards. Faculty who won
awards also published more material (F=17.451, p<.0001). Award-winning faculty
published eight items (M=7.91) and those who did not win an award published five items
(M=4.64).
Personal Subscriptions
We asked how many personal subscriptions to professional journals (in print or
electronic form) they receive, including those paid by themselves, received free, or
purchased by a grant or other source for personal or shared use. Twenty percent of
respondents do not have a personal subscription, and the average number of personal
subscriptions is four.
Over one-third (37%) of respondents have a print subscription and 54% of
respondents have an electronic subscription (Table 9). Forty-eight percent of respondents
have a subscription that includes a print and electronic version. The number of personal
subscriptions increase with the respondent’s age (F=9.141, p<.0001). Respondents over
sixty years of age have, by far, more personal subscriptions than younger faculty (M=6.32).
Respondents in their fifties have, on average, four personal subscriptions (M=3.89),
followed by those in their forties (M=3.38), those in their thirties (M=2.67), and those in
their twenties (M=2.41).
20
Table 9. Number of Personal Subscriptions for US Faculty Respondents
Frequency
Percentage
Print-only Subscriptions
521
100.0
0
193
37.0
1
90
17.3
2
98
18.8
3
67
12.9
4
30
5.8
5
23
4.4
>5
20
3.8
Electronic-only subscriptions
492
100.0
0
265
53.9
1
90
18.3
2
57
11.6
3
31
6.3
4
16
3.3
5
16
3.3
>5
17
3.5
Print and Electronic
509
100.0
Subscriptions
0
242
47.5
1
95
18.7
2
72
14.1
3
42
8.3
4
19
3.7
5
17
3.3
>5
22
4.3
Last Information Source Used
While US academics use a variety of sources to inform their work, they may rely on
one type of material. We asked , “What source did you use for the last substantive piece of
information in your work?” Journal articles are, by far, the most frequent last source of
information (Table 10). A magazine article was the second most frequent source (21%).
21
Table 10. Last Information Source Used by US Faculty Respondents
Frequency Percent
356
61.5
10
1.7
58
10.0
9
1.6
119
20.6
13
2.2
14
2.4
579
100.0
Journal article
Book or book chapter
Web site
Conference proceeding
Magazine article
Personal contact
Other
Total
Eighty-eight percent of medical science faculty, 80% of science faculty, 66% of social
science faculty, and 62% of engineering/technology/mathematics faculty identified journal
articles as their last information source used. However, only 35% of humanists used
journal articles; instead, the majority of humanists (51%) identified books/book chapters
as their last information source used. Seventeen percent of social scientists used book
chapters as well. Seventeen percent of engineering/technology/mathematics faculty and
11% of social science faculty used a website.
22
Scholarly Journal Article Reading
23
Total Amount of Article Reading
One of the questions in all of the Tenopir and King surveys from 1977 to the present
is an estimate of the total number of articles read in the last month by each respondent.
The results provide an approximation of how many articles a respondent reads in a year,
which allows us to compare results over time and across populations.
Since the question relies on personal recollection, we ask for a relatively short
period of time (one month) rather than asking the respondents to reflect back over a longer
period of time. We also assume the last month is an accurate representation of a typical
month of reading. The first question stated, “In the past month (30 days), approximately
how many scholarly articles have you read? (Articles can include those found in journal issues,
Web sites, or separate copies such as preprints, reprints, and other electronic or paper copies.
Reading is defined as going beyond the table of contents, title, and abstract to the body of the
article).” The actual number is not as important as the relative amounts among types of
respondents and over time. For convenience we often report results as readings per year,
by taking the monthly number reported by the respondent and multiplying it by 12.
In the last month, the faculty read an average of twenty-one articles (M=20.81,
SD=21.735). 2 Extrapolated to an entire year, the average US faculty member reads 252
articles. Only 6% of the respondents report zero readings in the past month; zero readings
is included in our average.
2
Excludes outliers over 150. Including outliers the mean is 23.46.
24
Last Incident of Reading and Date of Publication
The next set of questions asks the respondents to focus on the last scholarly article
they read. This variation of the critical incident technique assumes the last article reading
is random and provides detailed information on a random sample of the readings by faculty
members. We asked, “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 reading patterns.”
We then asked for the title or topic of the journal article from which the last reading took
place in order to focus their minds on the article for the rest of the critical incident
questions.
The next question asked for the publication or posting date of the last article
reading. In the surveys in the U.S. from 1977 to 2005, we have seen an increase in reading
of articles older than the first year of publication, though reading is still skewed to the most
recent articles (King et al. 2009). In the surveys in the U.S. and Australia in 2005, we found
an increase in the reading of older articles, with just half of readings within the first year of
publication, and in the U.K. in 2011 nearly half of the readings are from articles in their first
eighteen months of publication (Tenopir et al. 2012). This differs from older studies, which
found about two-thirds of reading within the first year of publication (Tenopir et al. 2005).
The change may be a result of availability of electronic back files, an increase in the
respondent’s searching capabilities to identify older articles, and/or search system features
such as relevance ranking that allows older articles to be more accessible. There are, of
course, some differences based on subject discipline, with medical staff reading a higher
proportion of current articles.
25
Thirty-nine percent of article readings by faculty members are within the first year
of publication (Table 11). The year of publication ranges from as early as 1944, with 10%
published before 1997.
Table 11. Age of Article Reading by US Faculty
Year
Over 15 years
(Before 1997)
11 ~ 15 years
(1997-2001)
6 ~ 10 years
(2002-2006)
2 ~ 5 years
(2007-2010)
1 Year (2011)
Less than 1 year
(2012)
Total
Frequency
Percentage
61
9.7
64
10.2
25
129
102
247
628
4.0
20.5
16.2
39.3
100.0
Graduate students and undergraduate students report more readings over two
years old than do faculty members. Thirty-one percent of the readings by undergraduate
students (155 of 428) and 21% of the readings by graduate students (202 of 958) in the
United States are in their first year of publication, while 39% of the readings by faculty
members are in the first year of publication.
Studies done by Guthrie (2000), Odlyzko (2000), and Herman (2004) provide
further research on the life of a journal article and its half-life. They found many older
articles are heavily used when they are conveniently accessible; however, academics tend
to cite more recent articles in order to seem current and up-to-date in their field. Their
research further suggests that back files are a key investment in addition to current
subscriptions.
26
Novelty of Information in the Reading
Since this is a random sample of article readings rather than unique articles, the
article may have been previously read. In this study, 22% of the article readings are re-
readings. We also wanted to find out the reader’s knowledge of the article content before
this reading (i.e., was the information familiar to them before the reading). Together, these
questions indicate if articles are often used as sources of new information. Over two-thirds
(70%) of the respondents say they knew parts of the information in the article prior to this
reading, but only 5% knew all (or a majority) of the information.
To further determine the novelty and value of articles as sources of new
information, we asked those who knew about all or part of the information in the article
reading where they originally found it. Another journal article, informal discussion with
colleagues, and “other” sources are the main sources of information found in articles (Table
12). The “other” responses include a database search, an author, a clinical case, books,
graduate school, prior research, a student, and email notices.
Table 12. Source of Information Not Obtained Through Last Article Reading
by US Faculty
Conference or workshop
Informal discussion with colleagues
Listserv or blog
Journal article
E-mail from colleague
Preprint/e-print service (e.g., arXiv.org)
Web site of author
Institutional Repository
Other
Total
27
Frequency
32
58
25
149
30
9
10
13
133
459
Percent
7.0
12.6
5.4
32.5
6.5
2.0
2.2
2.8
29.0
100.0
Thoroughness of Last Article Reading and Time Spent Reading
Economist Fritz Machlup (1979) described two types of value in the information
context: purchase or exchange value and use value. Time spent represents an exchange
value, assuming faculty members spend a large portion of their work time on reading
because they consider it valuable. In order to get an indication of the exchange value of
reading, we asked respondents to describe the thoroughness of their last scholarly article
reading and how much time they spent on the reading.
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the readings are read with great care and attention to all
or parts of the article. Only 7% of the readings are skimmed (Table 13). Seventy-seven
percent of re-readings and 61% of first-time readings are read with great care and
attention to all or parts of the article. Just 11% of re-readings and 13% of first time
readings are skimmed readings or readings only of specific sections or figures.
Table 13. Thoroughness of Last Article Reading by US Faculty
I read all of it with great care
I read parts of it with great care
I read it with attention to the
main points
I read only specific sections
I skimmed it just to get the idea
Total
Frequency
197
214
147
39
43
640
Percent
30.8
33.4
23.0
6.1
6.7
100.0
Another aspect of the thoroughness of the article reading is the amount of time
spent per reading. This could include multiple sittings. The average time spent per reading
is thirty-three minutes (M=32.69, SD=29.8.5), with a range of two minutes to four hours. 3
Only 9% of readings are over an hour (Table 14).
3
Excludes outliers over 240. Including outliers the mean is 34.22.
28
Table 14 Average Time Spent Per Article Reading by US Faculty
Minutes
1-10
11-30
31-60
Over 60
Total
Frequency
119
326
131
55
631
Percent
18.9
51.7
20.8
8.7
100.0
Undergraduate students in the United States spend less time, on average, on each
article reading than graduate students or faculty members. The average time spent per
article reading by graduate students was forty-one minutes while undergraduates spend
twenty-eight minutes.
Source of Article
An important part of our analysis of academic faculty reading patterns is
determining how they become aware of articles. In the survey we asked, “How did you or
someone on your behalf become aware of this last article you read?” There are many ways to
become aware of information, and their answers reflect the myriad options (Table 15). We
followed up the question by asking what source they searched or browsed, indicating
whether it was a print or electronic source. For the purposes of the survey we defined
browsing as “without a specific objective in mind” and searching as having some sort of
starting point such as author’s name or by subject. We included a “don’t know/don’t
remember” option for faculty who may have had someone on their behalf seek out the
information or who may not remember how they became aware of the article.
Approximately 23% of the articles are found through browsing, and 21% of articles
are found through searching. Over half (56%) of the articles are found through one of the
29
other listed methods, including another person, citation, or other. The other sources
include e-mail, journal alerts, Google Scholar, preprint, listserv, and newsletter.
Table 15. How US Faculty Initially Become Aware of Articles
Frequency Percent
Browsing
143
23.1 (100.0)
1. Print personal subscription
(48)
(33.6)
2. Electronic personal subscription
(9)
(6.3)
3. Print library subscription
(5)
(3.5)
4. Electronic library subscription
(46)
(32.2)
5. Print school, department subscription
(1)
(0.7)
6. Electronic school, department
subscription
(2)
(1.4)
7. Website
8. Other
Searching
1. Web search engine
2. Electronic indexing/abstracting
service
3. Print index or abstract
4. Online journal collection
5. Other
Other
1. Cited in another publication
2. Another person told me about it
3. Don’t know /don’t remember
4. Other
Total
(23)
(16.1)
(51)
(1)
(18)
(12)
349
(97)
(104)
(24)
(124)
620
(40.2)
(0.8)
(14.2)
(9.4)
56.3 (100.0)
(15.6)
(16.9)
(3.9)
(20.0)
100.0
(9)
128
(45)
(6.3)
20.6 (100.0)
(35.4)
Of the articles found through browsing, 34% are from a print personal subscription
and 6% are from an electronic personal subscription. Respondents also browse the library
online subscriptions (32%), library print subscriptions (4%), websites (16%), and other
sources (6%). These other sources browsed include emails, sample issues, and Google.
Nearly all of the articles found through searching are from an electronic source, including
30
40% from an electronic indexing/abstracting service, 35% from a web search engine, and
14% from an online journal collection. The “other” sources searched include an author’s
website, personal library, library search engine, PubMed, and online databases. Overall,
electronic sources are the primary means of becoming aware of the last article reading, and
while the library plays a role in helping respondents become aware of the last article, it is
mainly in an electronic form (e.g., online journal collection, electronic library subscription).
Influence of Source of Article
Electronic methods of becoming aware of articles provide faculty members with
access to more articles beyond their current information need. Many searching or
browsing queries identify multiple articles, and we wondered how that influences their
total readings. We asked, “As a result of searching or browsing for this article, how many
other articles have you read or plan to read?” Including all browsing and searching methods
of becoming aware of the last article reading, respondents read, on average, five articles
(M=5.06, SD=6.568). 4 Only 7% of respondents do not plan on reading any additional
articles (39 of 566). Respondents who found a reading through searching (M=7.42) or
through a citation (M=5.31) plan on reading more additional articles than those who found
the article through browsing (M=4.82) or through a colleague or other person (M=3.55) or
other means (M=3.81).
4
Excludes one outlier over 50. Including outlier the mean is 8.35.
31
Faculty spend an average of twenty-two minutes browsing per article reading
(M=21.76, SD=18.476) and twenty-three minutes searching per article reading (M=22.45,
SD=21.878). 5
Obtaining the Article
Once the respondent becomes aware of an article, they must obtain it. Forty-two
percent of article readings are obtained from an electronic library subscription (Table 16).
Many respondents praised the importance of library sources, including one respondent
who says, “Journals are the first place I turn to for information. The more access [my
university] can provide to faculty, the greater their output will be! I hope you will make
electronic access a priority.” Another respondent concurs, “I read everyday for my
research. Poor access was the main reason I left my previous institution. I think academic
positions in institutions with poor access are an exercise in futility.” All of the articles
obtained from the library, school/department subscription, and institutional repository are
from the electronic collections. Only 22% of readings are from a personal subscription.
Faculty members also use other sources to obtain article readings, including received from
an editor, personal library, and online databases. “Other” sources include JSTOR, Google,
WestLaw, a “journal that I receive,” SSRN, which demonstrates that faculty not always be
aware which sources constitute library sources and subscriptions. Including all sources,
79% of the articles are obtained from an electronic source (481 of 609).
Excludes outliers over 90. Including outliers the mean time to browse for an article is 26.33 and the mean
time to search for an article is 27.75.
5
32
Table 16. How US Faculty Obtain Articles
Personal subscription
• Print
• Electronic
Library subscription
• Print
• Electronic
Department/school subscription
• Print
• Electronic
Institutional repository
• Print
• Electronic
Free Web journal
Preprint Copy (electronic)
Copy from a colleague, author, etc.
• Print
• Electronic
Interlibrary loan
• Print
• Electronic
An author’s website
Other website
Other source
• Print
• Electronic
Total
Frequency
89
(73)
(16)
277
(15)
(260)
51
(6)
(45)
17
(3)
(14)
46
6
44
(11)
(32)
7
(3)
(4)
8
23
41
(14)
(27)
609
Percent
14.6 (100.0)
(82.0)
(18.0)
45.5
(5.5)
(94.5)
8.4
(11.8)
(88.2)
2.8
(17.6)
(82.4)
7.6
1.0
7.2(100.0)
(25.6)
(74.4)
1.1(100.0)
(42.9)
(57.1)
1.3
3.8
6.7 (100.0)
(34.1)
(65.9)
100.0
Regardless of how article readings are found, the majority are obtained from a
library subscription. Readings found by searching (67%) or a citation (53%), in particular,
are likely to be obtained from a library subscription.
In addition to the time spent becoming aware of articles, faculty members also
spend time to obtain articles. We asked, “After you identified this article, about how much
time (in minutes) did you and/or someone else on your behalf spend in each of the following
33
activities?: to obtain, request, receive, or downloaded and display, to photocopy or print, and
other.” The average time to obtain, request, receive, or download and display an article is
five and a half minutes, with a range of less than a minute to six and half hours. Over one
quarter (28%) of the readings require one minute or less to obtain. Article readings take
on average two minutes to photocopy or print, with a range of less than a minute to two
hours, and 59% of readings require less than one minute to photocopy and print. Only
10% of readings require any additional activities to obtain, ranging from less than one
minute to two hours. Academics have clearly become accustomed to speedy access to
articles once they become aware of them.
Use of Article Source
We also examined how the source they used to obtain article readings influences
their total reading and if academics are using the same source for multiple articles. We
asked, “From this same source (e.g., journal, author’s Web site, preprint archive),
approximately how many articles did you read in the last twelve months (1 year)?” Faculty
members read an average (mean) of twenty-four articles in the past year from the same
source they obtained their last reading (M=18.20, SD=32.241). 6 Eighteen percent of
readings come from a source from which they read no additional articles, and 37% of
readings are from sources from which more than ten articles are read from the same
source in the past year (Table 17).
6
Excludes outliers over 200. Including outliers the mean is 24.67.
34
Table 17. Number of Article Readings from the Same Source in the Last 12 Months
by US Faculty
0
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
Over 30
Total
Frequency
105
171
104
89
35
95
599
Percent
17.5
28.5
17.4
14.9
5.8
15.9
100.0
Faculty members read an average of 28 articles from a website, 25 articles from the
last school/department subscription, 22 articles from the last personal subscription, 19
articles the last library subscription, and 17 from the last free web journal (Table 18).
Table 18. Number of Articles Readings from the Same Source for US Faculty
Personal subscription
Library subscription
School / department
subscription
Institutional Repository
Free web journal
Preprint copy
Copy from a colleague, author,
etc.
Interlibrary loan
An author’s website
Other website
Other
35
Number of
article
readings
22
19
25
7
17
15
2
9
13
28
22
Alternative Source to Obtain Article
Another measure of value is contingent valuation, which measures value on whether
the respondent would obtain the information from another source if the original source
was not available (Imholz and Arns 2007). This method assumes if the information is
important the respondent will try multiple methods to obtain the information, but their
initial source is the most convenient, either due to speed or low cost. We asked, “Thinking
back to the source of the article (e.g., library collection, department collection, interlibrary
loan, etc.), where would you obtain the information if that source were not available?” Only
about a third (31%) of the readings would not be obtained from another source if the
original source were no longer available (185 of 593).
Another library is the most likely alternative source of article readings (Table 19).
Twenty-two percent of the readings would be obtained from a colleague, and only 4%
would be purchased. Faculty members would also use alternative sources not listed (33%),
including interlibrary loan, an online source, an author, a librarian, Google Scholar, and
other library resources.
Table 19. Alternate Source For an Article by US Faculty
Frequency
79
170
23
132
404
From a colleague
Use/visit another library
Purchase copy
From another source
Total
Percent
19.6
42.1
5.7
32.7
100.0
Regardless of the initial source, the majority of articles would be obtained from a
library if the original source was not available. Forty percent of the articles originally
obtained from the library would not be obtained from an alternative source. Of the articles
36
that would be obtained from another source, 46% would be obtained from another library
(185 of 404), 20% would be obtained from a colleague (79), and 29% would be obtained
from another source (117). One-third (38 of 117) of the “other” sources not listed,
respondents specified inter-library loan, and 10% named an unspecified database or
Google Scholar (12 of 117).
Obtaining the article from another source would cause many respondents to spend
more time and/or money. We asked respondents, “In order to obtain the same information,
if this source was not available, you would expect to spend how many minutes and/or
money?” One respondent states, “Can’t publish without them,” while another explains, “I
cannot do my research or my teaching without constant access to the latest scholarly
articles.” Over half (56%) expect to take over ten minutes to obtain the article from
another source, and on average, respondents expect to spend twenty-seven minutes to
obtain the information from an alternate source (M=27.43, SD=26.389). 7 The majority
(78%) of respondents do not expect spend any money to obtain the article from an
alternate source, and only 17% expect to spend more than five dollars.
Format of Article and Location of Reading
Although 75% of article readings are obtained from an electronic source, but this
does not mean the articles are read on a computer screen. In separate surveys of United
States graduate and undergraduate students (reported separately), we found that over half
(55%) of the readings by graduate students (529 of 956) and three quarters of the readings
7
Excludes outliers over 240. Including the outliers, the mean is 38.65.
37
by undergraduate students (75%, 393 of 526) are on a computer screen, even though 70%
of readings by graduate students and 88% of readings by undergraduate students were
obtained from an electronic source. Just over half (51%) of the faculty readings are read
on-screen, while nearly as many (48%) are read on print-on-paper, either from a print
journal or downloaded and printed from an electronic source. One faculty member states
his/her preference for electronic material, “If I didn’t have access to electronic journals, I
would be doomed.” While faculty members prefer electronic sources to obtain information,
print is still a popular means for reading. Just over a quarter (27%) of the readings are
from downloaded and printed on paper and18% of the readings are from a print journal
(Table 20). Only two percent of readings are read on a mobile, e-reader, or tablet screen.
The “other” formats are a book, a PDF, and “not sure.” Another faculty member states, “I
don’t use new technology for research (such as twitter, iPads, kindle, etc.). I do sometimes
download articles from JSTOR and read them on my computer, but I always read books in
print version and would never read them online.”
Table 20. Final Format of Last Article Reading by US Faculty
Print article in a print journal
Photocopy or fax copy
Online computer screen
Previously downloaded/saved and
read on computer screen
On a mobile, e-reader or tablet screen
Downloaded and printed on paper
Other
Total
Frequency
106
16
205
86
9
162
10
594
Percent
17.8
2.7
34.5
14.5
1.5
27.3
1.7
100.0
Eighty-one percent of the readings obtained from a personal subscription are read
as a print article in a print journal (70 of 86), while nearly three-quarters (73%) of
38
readings obtained from a library subscription are read from an online computer screen
(40%, 110 of 272) or downloaded and printed (33%, 90). Only 17% of the library-
provided readings are downloaded and read on a computer screen (46) and 3% are from a
print journal (9).
In past surveys, we found a majority of readings are done in the office or lab of
faculty members (Tenopir et al. 2009). While academics are using the library’s resources,
they are often accessing the library’s resources remotely and are rarely reading in the
library. Similarly, we found that US faculty members are doing the majority of their
reading in their office and lab (66%, 47 of 71) (Table 21). In fact, only two percent of
faculty member report reading articles in the library. Respondents also report reading in
the classroom, a coffee shop, a gym, and in multiple places. One respondent explains,
“Although my responses reflect a bunch of print resources (because they are the most
recent ones I was working with, I want to note that most of my research is done using
materials obtained online through law-related databases and the [library’s]electronic
database collection. Both are life-savers since I travel a lot and need to continue my
research while traveling.” Another faculty member states, “I cannot emphasize enough the
importance that electronic access to journal articles that one can view from lab, home,
office, etc.” Location is no longer a major factor in a faculty member’s access to academic
sources because the scholarly articles can be accessed and read from a variety of locations.
39
Table 21. Location of Article Reading by US Faculty
Office or lab
Library
Home
Traveling or commuting
Elsewhere
Total
Frequency
359
9
201
11
11
591
Percent
60.7
1.5
34.0
1.9
1.9
100.0
Sixty-five percent of the readings obtained from a library subscription are read in
the office or lab and 31% are read at home (176 and 83 of 271). Readings from a personal
subscription are split between the office (49%, 42 of 86) and home (49%, 42), while 70%
of copies obtained from school or department subscription are read in the office (35 of 50).
Purpose and Value of Article Reading
Survey data provides a picture of the purpose, value, and outcomes of article
readings, which usage data cannot provide. The first question in this series of questions
was, “For what principal purpose did you use, or do you plan to use, the information obtained
from the article you last read?” Over half (52%) of the readings are for the principal
purpose of research (Table 22). One respondent says that they are “essential for keeping
current and informing research,” while another says, “very important for keeping up with
research trends.” Article readings also support teaching (20%) and current
awareness/keeping up (10%).
40
Table 22. Principal Purpose of Article Reading by US Faculty
Research
Teaching
Administration
Current awareness/keeping up
Writing proposals, reports, etc.
Consulting, advising others
Internal or external presentations
Continuing education for self
Other
Total
Frequency
305
119
6
59
42
14
8
21
18
592
Percent
51.5
20.1
1.0
10.0
7.1
2.4
1.4
3.5
3.0
100.0
After establishing the principal purpose, we asked respondents to describe the value
of the article reading by ranking the article’s importance to the principal purpose and the
outcome the reading has on their work. Respondents ranked the article reading on a five-
point scale from “absolutely essential” to “not at all important.” Nearly all the readings are
considered at least “somewhat important” (89%). Thirty-two percent are considered
“absolutely essential” or “very important” to the principal purpose (Table 23).
We received many comments on the importance of article reading. One respondent
states, “[Electronic resources] mean a ton. Essential to cite other work to clarify one's own
research contribution, as well as to help incorporate existing thought/methods to improve
one's work.” Similarly, many respondents consider article readings “critical,” “significant,”
and “essential” to their work activities. It is clear from their comments that scholarly
articles are important to academic work beyond the principal purpose of reading.
41
Table 23. Importance of Article Reading to Principal Purpose of US Faculty
Frequency
11
179
181
154
66
591
Absolutely essential
Very important
Important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Total
Percent
1.9
30.3
30.6
26.1
11.2
100.0
Readings for consulting/advising, teaching, and writing proposals/reports/articles
are considered more important to the principal purpose than readings for other principal
purposes (χ2=77.199, p<.0001). Eighty-six percent of the readings for consulting/advising
(9 of 14), 76% for teaching (90 of 119), and 76% for writing (24 of 42) are considered at
least “important.” Sixty-nine percent of article readings for research are also considered at
least “important” (209 of 304). Nearly half (48%) of the readings for current awareness
(28 of 58) and one third of those for administrative purposes (2 of 6) are considered
“somewhat important.” None of the readings for teaching, administration, writing, or
presentations are considered “not at all important.”
Outcomes of Article Reading
In order to establish how the article was important to the principal purpose, we
asked respondents to select one or more outcomes of the reading. The most frequent
outcomes are “it added to my general knowledge,” “inspired new thinking,” “improved the
result,” and “narrowed/broadened/changed the focus” (Table 24). In the open-ended
comments one respondent describes article readings as, “Informs me of current literature
on topics, which empowers me to enhance my own work as well as share findings with
42
others,” and another comments, “Inspire me and they are giving me the knowledge for
doing my research.” Only 1% of readings are considered a waste of time.
Table 24. Outcomes of Article Reading for US Faculty*
Frequency Percent
It added to my general knowledge
362
59.8
Inspired new thinking
323
53.4
Improved the result
225
37.2
Narrowed/broadened/changed the
focus
138
22.8
Saved time or resources
73
12.1
Resolved technical problems
42
6.9
Made me question my work
37
6.1
Resulted in faster completion
33
5.5
Others
25
4.1
Resulted in collaboration/joint research
21
3.5
Wasted time
5
0.8
Total
605
*Respondents could select more than one outcome.
Forty-three percent of the article reading have been or will be cited (Table 25). One
quarter will not be cited. As the article reading’s importance to the principal purpose
increases, so does the chance it will be cited (p=.320).
\Table 25. Article Citation by US Faculty
Frequency
No
142
Maybe
197
Already did
104
Will in the future
149
Total
592
43
Percent
24.0
33.3
17.6
25.2
100.0
Differences of Article Reading Patterns by
Demographics
44
Differences of Article Reading Patterns by Discipline
We found associations between the respondent’s discipline and the number of
article readings (F=4.961, p<.0001). One humanist replies, “As a poet, I read novels, books
of poems, and poetry journals. I also do a bit of research on Latina American lit and Biblical
subjects to keep up with the field with the expectation that I will teach those subjects again
someday.” A scientist comments, “My research area is climate change and agriculture, so
that is a rapidly evolving field and keeping up with the literature is critical. I also like to
keep the course I teach very modern and relevant.” Medical science (M=37.09) and science
(M=26.10) faculty report more article readings than engineering/technology/math
(M=22.07), humanities (M=21.03), and social scientists (M=19.19).
We also found differences between discipline and time spent per reading (F=1.190,
p=.313). Humanists spent the most time reading (M=37.92), followed by scientists
(M=33.55), engineering/technology/math faculty (M=32.19), social scientists (M=30.37),
and medical science faculty (M=28.58).
We found a similar association between the graduate student and undergraduate
student discipline and number of article readings. Graduate students in the sciences
(M=34.92) and social sciences (M=34.92) read more articles per month, but those in the
medical sciences spend the least amount of time per reading (M=29.46). Undergraduate
students in the social sciences (M=18.36) and sciences (M=16.28) read more articles per
month, but those in the sciences spend the least amount of time per reading (M=25.99).
Graduate and undergraduate students in the humanities read fewer articles
(Mgraduate=28.69, Mundergraduate=16.21) but spend more time per reading (Mgraduate=45.74,
Mundergraduate=30.22).
45
The majority of readings by medical scientists (76%), scientists (63%), engineers
(59%), and social scientists (55%) are in the first two years of publication, while only 38%
of readings by humanists are in the first two years of publication (χ2=53.870, p=.001). The
age range for articles read among humanists is nearly evenly spread out between articles
more than fifteen years old and less than one year old (Table 26).
Table 26. Association between Year of Publication and Discipline of US Faculty
Over 15
11-15
6-10
2-5
years
years
years
years
Row
2011 2012
(Before
(1997(2002(2007Total
1997)
2001)
2006)
2011)
6
3
11
18
15
49
102
Sciences
5.9%
2.9%
10.8%
17.6% 14.7% 48.0% 100.0%
1
0
1
6
5
20
33
Medical Sciences
3.0%
0%
3.0%
18.2% 15.2% 60.6% 100.0%
Engineering/
7
3
8
8
13
25
64
Technology/Math 10.9%
4.7%
12.5%
12.5% 20.3% 39.1% 100.0%
13
6
18
53
43
65
198
Social Sciences
6.6%
3.0%
9.1%
26.8% 21.7% 32.8% 100.0%
22
8
20
26
9
38
123
Humanities
17.9%
6.5%
16.3%
21.1%
7.3% 30.9% 100.0%
2
2
3
3
6
14
30
Others
6.7%
6.7%
10.0%
10.0% 20.0% 46.7% 100.0%
51
22
61
114
91
211
550
Column Total
9.3%
4.0%
11.1%
20.7% 16.5% 38.4% 100.0%
Faculty members in the sciences and medical sciences are the most likely to obtain
an article reading from a library subscription (χ2=75.970, p=.010). Over half of readings by
scientists (52%, 53 of 103) and medical scientists (52%, 17 of 33) are obtained through a
library subscription, followed by half of the readings by humanists (61 of 123), 48% of the
readings by social scientists (96 of 201), and 31% of engineering/technology/math faculty
(20 of 65). Article readings by engineering/technology/math faculty are also obtained
through a personal subscription (14%, 9) and school/department subscription (19%, 12).
46
Nearly one-quarter of medical science article readings (24%, 8), 16% of social science
readings (32), 15% of humanities readings (18), and just 6% of science readings (6) are
obtained through a personal subscription.
We found a significant difference between faculty discipline and location of article
reading (χ2=97.107, p<.0001). Readings by humanities faculty are more likely to be in the
home versus faculty in other disciplines. Table 27 illustrates the differences between the
location of article readings by discipline. Eighty-four percent of the readings by science
faculty, 83% of the readings by faculty in the engineering/technology/math fields, 61% of
those by social science faculty, and 52% by medical science faculty are read in the office or
lab, but only 39% of the readings by humanities faculty are in the office.
Table 27. Association between Location of Article Reading and Discipline of US
Faculty
Office or
Traveling or
Row
Library
Home
Elsewhere
Lab
commuting
Total
86
1
14
1
1
103
Sciences
83.5%
1.0%
13.6%
1.0%
1.0%
100.0%
17
0
14
1
1
33
Medical Sciences
51.5%
0%
42.4%
3.0%
3.0%
100.0%
Engineering/
54
0
6
3
2
65
technology / math 83.1%
%
9.2%
4.6%
3.1%
100.0%
123
2
69
4
3
201
Social Sciences
61.2%
1.0%
34.3%
2.0%
1.5%
100.0%
48
2
71
1
2
124
Humanities
38.7%
1.6%
57.3%
0.8%
1.6%
100.0%
16
3
9
0
2
30
Other
53.3%
10.0%
30.0%
0%
6.7%
100.0%
344
8
183
10
11
556
Column Total
61.9%
1.4%
32.9%
1.8%
2.0%
100.0%
We found some differences between subject discipline and the principal purpose of
reading (χ2=106.988, p<.0001). While research was the most frequently reported purpose
of reading across disciplines, we found some significant differences in teaching (Table 28).
47
Over one-quarter (28%) of the readings by humanists and medical scientists (27%) are
read for the principal purpose of teaching, while only 21% of the readings by social
scientists, 12% by engineering/technology/math faculty, and just 10% by scientists are
read for teaching. Only social scientists (3%) and humanists (1%) report readings for
administrative purposes. Between 6-11% of respondents’ readings in various disciplines
read for current awareness. A neuroscientist stresses the importance of timely information
found in articles, “The field changes so quickly so it’s essential to have access to the newest
changes and the background studies that are often referenced. Thus I read a lot of articles.”
Table 28. Association between Principal Purpose of Article Reading and Discipline of
US Faculty
Engineering
Medical
Social
Row
Sciences
/Technology
Humanities Other
Sciences
Sciences
Total
/Math
62
15
39
101
64
5
286
Research
60.8%
45.5%
60.0%
50.2%
51.6%
16.7%
51.5%
10
9
8
42
35
6
110
Teaching
9.8%
27.3%
12.3%
20.9%
28.2%
20.0%
19.8%
0
0
0
5
1
0
6
Administration
0%
0%
0%
2.5%
0.8%
0%
1.1%
10
4
4
21
7
9
55
Current Awareness
9.8%
12.1%
6.2%
10.4%
5.6%
30.3%
9.9%
Writing proposals,
11
3
6
15
7
0
42
reports, articles, etc. 10.8%
9.1%
9.2%
7.5%
5.6%
0%
7.6%
2
1
1
6
4
0
14
Consulting/Advising
2.0%
3.0%
1.5%
3.0%
3.2%
0%
2.5%
1
1
0
3
1
0
6
Presentations
1.0%
3.0%
0%
1.5%
0.8%
0%
1.1%
Continuing
3
0
4
7
2
3
19
education for self
2.9%
0%
6.2%
3.5%
1.6%
10.0%
3.4%
3
0
3
1
3
4
17
Others
2.9%
0%
4.6%
0.5%
2.4%
23.3%
3.1%
102
33
65
201
124
30
555
Column Total
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
48
We did not find a significant association between subject discipline and how they
became aware of the article or importance of the article to the principal purpose of reading
or whether the article will be cited.
Differences of Article Reading Patterns by Position, Age, and Productivity
Assistant professors (M=28.27) read more scholarly articles than other faculty
members (F=5.128, p<.0001) but associate professors spend more time per article reading
(F=1.196, p=.310) (Table 29). Professors read, on average, twenty-five articles per month
(MProfessors=M=25.42), followed by associate professors (M=20.09), adjuncts (M=17.92), and
instructors/lecturers (M=12.58). “Other” academic statuses, which include academic
professionals and research positions, read, on average, eighteen articles per month
(M=18.40). Associate professors spend, on average, thirty-eight minutes per article
(M=38.16), followed by adjuncts (M=35.44), assistant professors (M=32.67), professors
(M=31.52), “other” positions (M=30.10), instructors/lecturers (M=28.16).
Table 29. Number of Article Readings and Time Spent Reading for US Faculty by
Academic Status
Number of
article
readings
Professors
Associate Professors
Assistant Professors
Instructors /
Lecturers
Adjuncts
Other
25.42
20.09
28.27
12.58
17.92
18.40
49
Time spent
per article
reading
(minutes)
31.52
38.16
32.67
28.16
35.44
30.10
We found some differences between academic status and year of article publication
(χ2=43.129, p=.014). A majority of the article readings by adjuncts (79%, 19 of 24),
professors (64%, 92 of 144), and associate professors (50%, 59 of 117) were published in
2011 or 2012, whereas only 44% of the article readings by assistant professors (54 of 123)
and 39% by instructors/lecturers (12 of 31) were published in the last two years (Table
30).
Table 30. Association between Year of Publication and Academic Status of US Faculty
Over 15
11-15
6-10
2-5
years
years
years
years
Row
2011 2012
(Before
(1997(2002(2007Total
1997)
2001)
2006)
2011)
14
2
13
22
25
67
144
Professor
9.7%
2.1%
9.0%
15.3% 17.4% 46.5% 100.0%
Associate
9
7
13
29
19
40
117
Professor
7.7%
6.0%
11.1%
24.8% 16.2% 34.2% 100.0%
Assistant
17
5
18
29
17
37
123
Professor
13.8%
4.1%
14.6%
23.6% 13.8% 30.1% 100.0%
Instructor /
3
2
2
12
3
9
31
Lecturer
9.7%
6.5%
6.5%
38.7%
9.7% 29.0% 100.0%
0
1
1
3
1
18
24
Adjunct
0%
4.2%
4.2%
12.5%
4.2% 75.0% 100.0%
8
4
13
19
25
38
107
Others
7.5%
3.7%
12.1%
17.8% 23.4% 35.5% 100.0%
51
22
60
114
90
209
546
Column Total
9.3%
4.0%
11.0%
20.9% 16.5% 38.3% 100.0%
Faculty in the United States discover article readings through a variety of means,
but we found some difference in academic status and how the respondent became aware of
the article reading (χ2=37.365, p=.053). More article readings by professors (25%, 36 of
144) and adjuncts (32%, 8 of 24)are discovered through browsing than article readings by
assistant professors (22%, 27 of 123), instructors/lecturers (22%, 7 of 32), or associate
professors (21%, 25 of 119). However, 31% of the readings by instructors/lecturers (10),
50
30% by assistant professors (37), and 28% by associate professors (33) are discovered
through searching, but only 16% of the readings by adjuncts (4) and 13% by professors
(19) are discovered through those means.
Assistant professors’ article readings (60%, 74 of 123) and associate professors’
readings (59%, 70 of 119) are more likely to be obtained from the library (χ2=107.438,
p<.0001). Only 43% of the readings by professors, 34% by instructors/lecturers, and 29%
by adjuncts are obtained from the library (Table 31). One-third of the readings by adjuncts,
one-quarter by professors, 13% by associate professors, 9% by instructors/lecturers, and
5% by assistant professors are from a personal subscription.
51
Table 31. Association between Where an Article Reading is Obtained and Academic
Status of US Faculty
Associate Assistant Instructor
Row
Professor
Adjunct Others
Professor Professor / Lecturer
Total
Personal
34
15
6
3
8
12
78
subscription
23.6%
12.6%
4.9%
9.4%
33.3% 10.9% 14.1%
Library
62
70
74
11
7
32
256
subscription
43.1%
58.8%
60.2%
34.4% 29.2% 29.1% 46.4%
School / Dept.
9
7
10
2
0
18
46
subscription
6.3%
5.9%
8.1%
6.3%
0% 16.4% 8.3%
Institutional
2
2
6
2
0
3
15
Repository
1.4%
1.7%
4.9%
6.3%
0%
2.7% 2.7%
8
6
5
6
5
11
41
Free web journal
5.6%
5.0%
4.1%
18.8% 20.8% 10.0% 7.4%
3
0
1
0
1
1
6
Preprint copy
2.1%
0%
0.8%
0%
4.2% 0.9% 1.1%
Copy from a
8
8
5
3
2
12
38
colleague, author,
5.6%
6.7%
4.1%
9.4%
8.3% 10.9% 6.9%
etc.
3
1
1
1
0
0
6
Interlibrary loan
2.1%
0.8%
0.8%
3.1%
0%
0%
1.1%
An author’s
3
1
2
1
0
1
8
website
2.1%
0.8%
1.6%
3.1%
0%
0.9% 1.4%
1
3
4
2
1
8
19
Other website
0.7%
2.5%
3.3%
6.3%
4.2% 7.3% 3.4%
11
8
9
1
0
12
39
Others
7.6%
5.0%
7.3%
3.1%
0% 10.9% 7.1%
144
119
123
32
24
110
552
Column Total
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
We found some differences in academic position and format of reading (χ2=37.994,
p=.150). Nearly half (53%) of article readings by instructors/lecturers and by professors
are read from a print format (print journal, photocopy, downloaded and printed, etc.),
while 48% of the readings by adjuncts, 45% by assistant professors, and 43% by associate
professors are in a print format. However, over half of the readings by associate professors
(56%), assistant professors (54%), and adjuncts (52%) are in an electronic format (online
52
or mobile screen). Only 47% of the readings by instructors/lecturers and 46% by
professors are in an e-format.
Except for adjuncts (who may not have adequate office space), most respondents
report reading articles in the office or lab (χ2=29.696, p=.075). Sixty-three percent of the
readings by assistant professors, 61% by professors, 57% by associate professors, and 57%
by instructors/lecturers are read in the office or lab. Nearly three quarters (72%) of
“other” positions such as research positions and academic professionals are read in the
office or lab. Adjuncts read the most in the library--8% of article readings by adjuncts are
read in the library, but only 2% of the article readings by assistant professors and less than
one percent of professors (0.7%), associate professors (0.8%), and “other” positions (2%)
are read in the library. No instructor/lecturer reports reading an article in the library. On
the other hand, 44% of readings by adjuncts, 44% by instructors/lecturers, 40% by
associate professors, 34% by professors, and 31% by assistant professors are read at
home. Only 21% of “other” positions report reading articles at home.
We found a significant associate between academic position and principal purpose
of reading (χ2=113.138, p<.0001). Article readings by assistant professors (63%),
professors (57%), associate professors (53%), and “other” positions (46%) are more read
for research, while those by instructors/lecturers (56%) are read for teaching (Table 32).
Readings by adjuncts are split evenly among those read for research (28%), teaching
(28%), and current awareness (32%).
53
Table 32. Association between Principal Purpose of Article Reading and Academic
Position of US Faculty
Associate Assistant Instructors
Row
Professors
Adjuncts Other
Professors Professors /Lecturers
Total
82
63
77
7
7
50
286
Research
57.3%
52.9%
62.6%
21.9%
28.0%
45.5% 51.8%
24
29
28
18
7
4
110
Teaching
16.8%
24.4%
22.8%
56.3%
28.0%
3.6% 19.9%
1
4
0
0
0
1
6
Administration
0.7%
3.4%
0%
0%
0%
0.9% 1.1%
12
8
3
3
8
20
54
Current Awareness
8.4%
6.7%
2.4%
9.4%
32.0%
18.2% 9.8%
Writing proposals,
8
8
9
1
2
13
41
reports, articles, etc.
5.6%
6.7%
7.3%
3.1%
8.0%
11.8% 7.4%
4
2
2
1
0
5
14
Consulting/Advising
2.8%
1.7%
1.6%
3.1%
0%
4.5% 2.5%
2
0
1
0
0
2
5
Presentations
1.4%
0%
0.8%
0%
0%
1.8% 0.9%
Continuing
6
2
1
1
1
8
19
education for self
4.2%
1.7%
0.8%
3.1%
4.0%
7.3% 3.4%
4
3
2
1
0
7
17
Others
2.8%
2.5%
1.6%
3.1%
0%
6.4% 3.1%
143
119
123
32
25
110
552
Column Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Articles read by instructors/lecturers are considered more important to the
principal purpose than article read by other academic positions (χ2=29.513, p=.078). Over
half (53%) of the articles reading by instructors/lecturers are considered “very important”
or “absolutely essential,” followed by 46% by adjuncts, 40% by “other” positions, 38% by
associate professors, 31% by professors, and just 22% by assistant professors.
Over half of the article readings by assistant professors (55%) and half of the
readings by associate professors have been or will be cited (χ2=51.608, p<.0001).
However, only 40% of the readings by “other” positions, 38% by professors, 24% by
adjuncts, and just 19% by instructors/lecturers have been or will be cited. Furthermore,
53% of the readings by instructors/lecturers, 52% by adjuncts, 29% by “other” positions,
54
20% by professors, 19% by associate professors, and 12% by assistant professors will not
be cited.
We found some differences in the respondent’s age and number of article readings
(F=1.057, p=.377). Respondents over sixty years of age report the most article readings
(M=24.91), followed by those in their forties (M=23.35), thirties and fifties (M=20.74 each).
Respondents in their twenties reported the least number of article readings (M=18.39).
We found no association between age and time spent per article reading.
There are some variations between a respondent’s age and how they become aware
of an article (χ2=31.266, p=.052). Faculty over sixty years of age are more likely to learn
about an article reading through browsing (36%), while only 23% of readings by
respondents in their twenties, 21% in their thirties, 20% in their forties, and just 16% in
their fifties are discovered through browsing (Table 33). Younger faculty also rely more
on their colleagues. Twenty-three percent of the readings by faculty in their twenties and
21% by those in their thirties are found through a colleague, while only 16% of the
readings by faculty in their forties and over sixty, and just 15% by faculty in their fifties are
discovered through a colleague.
55
Table 33. Association between Age Range of US Faculty and how Respondents
become Aware of Article Readings
Under
31-40
41-50
51-60
Row
Over 60
30
Years
Years
Years
Total
Found while
8
29
26
23
36
122
browsing
22.9%
21.3%
20.3%
16.4%
36.5%
22.6%
Found while
9
36
27
26
15
113
searching
25.7%
26.5%
21.1%
18.6%
14.9%
20.9%
Cited in another
5
18
23
26
11
83
publication
14.3%
13.2%
18.0%
18.6%
10.9%
15.4%
Another person
8
28
21
21
16
94
(e.g., a colleague)
22.9%
20.6%
16.4%
15.0%
15.8%
17.4%
told me about it
Do not know / Don’t
1
5
5
7
0
18
remember
2.9%
3.7%
3.9%
5.0%
0%
3.3%
4
20
26
37
23
110
Other
11.4%
14.7%
20.3%
26.4%
22.8%
20.4%
35
136
128
140
101
540
Column Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
More United States faculty across all age groups obtain their article readings
through a library subscription than other avenues (χ2=92.620, p<.0001). However, it may
be that they cannot always differentiate between what is library-provided and what is
provided by other sources. Over have of the readings by respondents in their forties (56%)
obtain articles through a library subscription, followed by 49% by those in their thirties,
43% by those in their fifties, 36% by those over sixty, and 31% by those in their twenties.
Older respondents obtain more articles through a personal subscription (Table 34).
56
Table 34. Association between Age Range of US Faculty and how Respondents Obtain
of Article Readings
Under
31-40
41-50
51-60
Row
Over 60
30
Years
Years
Years
Total
Personal
5
8
14
21
28
76
subscription
14.3%
5.9%
10.9%
15.1%
27.7%
14.1%
11
67
71
60
36
245
Library subscription
31.4%
49.3%
55.5%
43.2%
35.6%
45.5%
School / dept.
9
20
8
6
3
46
subscription
25.7%
14.7%
6.3%
4.3%
3.0%
8.5%
Institutional
1
3
2
7
2
15
Repository
2.9%
2.2%
1.6%
5.0%
2.0%
2.8%
4
7
7
11
12
41
Free web journal
11.4%
5.1%
5.5%
7.9%
11.9%
7.6%
0
2
0
2
2
6
Preprint copy
0%
1.5%
0%
1.4%
2.0%
1.1%
Copy from a
1
7
13
13
4
38
colleague, author,
2.9%
5.1%
10.2%
9.4%
4.0%
7.1%
etc.
1
0
1
1
3
6
Interlibrary loan
2.9%
0%
0.8%
0.7%
3.0%
1.1%
0
4
0
4
0
8
An author’s website
0%
2.9%
0%
2.9%
0%
1.5%
2
8
2
6
1
19
Other website
5.7%
5.9%
1.6%
4.3%
1.0%
3.5%
1
10
10
8
10
39
Other
2.9%
7.4%
7.8%
5.8%
9.9%
7.2%
35
136
128
139
101
539
Column Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Faculty over sixty years of age report far more article readings in a print format
(χ2=60.938, p<.0001). Sixty percent of the readings by faculty over sixty years are in a
print format (print journal, photocopy, downloaded and printed), but just 46% of the
readings by faculty in their fifties and thirties, 43% by those in their twenties and 41% by
faculty in their forties are in print form. Over half of the article readings by faculty in their
twenties (57%), forties (56%), thirties (54%) and fifties (51%) are in electronic form
(online computer screen, mobile), but only 39% of the readings by faculty over sixty are in
57
an electronic format. Of the articles in electronic format, 5% by those read by faculty in
their thirties, 3% in their twenties, and 1% in their fifties are read on a mobile screen. No
faculty member in their forties or over sixty reports reading an article on a mobile screen.
We found a significant difference between the respondents’ age and principal
purpose of reading (χ2=44.968, p=.064). Younger faculty read more for research than older
faculty (Table 35). Sixty-three percent of the article readings by faculty in their twenties,
61% by faculty in their forties, 57% by faculty in their thirties, 44% by faculty over sixty,
and 42% by faculty in their fifties are read for research. On the other hand, older faculty
read more for teaching. One-quarter of the article readings by faculty over sixty, 22% by
faculty in their fifties, 18% by faculty in their thirties, 16% by faculty in their forties, and
14% by faculty in their twenties are read for teaching.
58
Table 35. Association between Principal Purpose of Article Reading and Age Range of
US Faculty
31-40
41-50
51-60
Row
Under 30
Over 60
Years
Years
Years
Total
22
78
78
59
44
281
Research
62.9%
57.4%
60.9%
42.4%
43.6%
52.1%
5
25
20
31
25
106
Teaching
14.3%
18.4%
15.6%
22.3%
24.8%
19.7%
0
1
2
1
2
6
Administration
0%
0.7%
1.6%
0.7%
2.0%
1.1%
4
7
11
19
10
51
Current Awareness
11.4%
5.1%
8.6%
13.7%
9.9%
9.5%
Writing proposals,
0
15
9
12
5
41
reports, articles, etc.
0%
11.0%
7.0%
8.6%
5.0%
7.6%
0
4
3
3
3
13
Consulting/Advising
0%
2.9%
2.3%
2.2%
3.0%
2.4%
2
0
1
2
1
6
Presentations
5.7%
0%
0.8%
1.4%
1.0%
1.1%
Continuing
2
2
3
5
7
19
education for self
5.7%
1.5%
2.3%
3.6%
6.9%
3.5%
0
4
1
7
4
16
Others
0%
2.9%
0.8%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
35
136
128
139
101
539
Column Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
We found some differences in age and whether the article will be cited (χ2=17.486,
p=.132). Over half (52%) of the readings by academics in their thirties, 46% of those in
their forties, 41% by those in their fifties, 37% by those in their twenties, and 34% by those
over sixty have been or will be cited.
Male academics report more article reading per month than female academics
(F=2.396, p=.122). Men report reading 23 articles per month (M=23.38) while women
report reading 21 articles per month (M=20.53). Male academics also report spending
more time per article readings than female academics (F=3.801, p=.052). Men report, on
average, spending 35 minutes per article reading (M=35.25) while women report spending
30 minutes per reading. (M=30.31).
59
We found some differences in the respondents’ gender and how they become aware
of the article reading (χ2=13.708, p=.018). Twenty-seven percent of the readings by female
faculty members are discovered through searching, but only 16% of the readings by male
faculty members are discovered that way. On the other hand, 21% of the readings by men
are discovered through a colleague or other person, but only 13% of the readings by
women are discovered in that way.
While the office or lab is the most frequent choice of location for reading articles for
both genders, men are slightly more likely to prefer that location, while slightly more
readings by women are read in the home (χ2=6.588, p=.159). Sixty-six percent of the
article readings by men and 57% by women are read in the office or lab. Thirty-eight
percent of the readings by women and 28% by men are read in the home.
We also found some differences between gender and principal purpose of reading
(χ2=17.493, p=.025). Fifty-seven percent of the readings by men and 47% by women are
read for research, while 24% by women and just 16% by men are read for teaching. Eleven
percent of the readings by men and just 9% by women are read for current awareness as
well.
We did not find any significant differences in gender and year of article publication,
where it was obtained, format of reading, importance of the article to the principal purpose,
or whether the article will be cited.
In past studies, we have found that academics who have won awards or received
special recognition in the past two years read more articles (King et al. 2003). We found a
similar association in this study (F=1.150, p=.284). Faculty members who received an
award or recognition in the past two years report an average of twenty-four article
60
readings per month, while those who did not receive an award or recognition report an
average of twenty-one article readings per month.
We also found a significant association between the number of article readings and
the number of items published in the past two years. Faculty members who published
more items read, on average, more articles per month (F=6.791, p.001). Faculty who
published more than ten items read, on average, twenty-nine articles per month, those who
published between three and ten items read twenty-five articles per month, and those who
published between zero and two items read only seventeen articles per month.
61
Scholarly Book Reading
62
In other Tenopir & King studies, the critical incident of reading focused only on the
last scholarly article reading. A 2011 study in the United Kingdom expanded the survey to
examine the last book/book chapter and other publication readings. For this study, we also
included readings from books, book chapters, and other publications. In this section of the
report, we focus on book or book chapter readings.
Total Amount of Book Reading and Last Incident of Reading
As in the section on scholarly article reading, we started the section by carefully
defining book reading and focusing the respondent on the books they recently read or read
from. We asked, “In the past month (30 days) approximately from how many books or parts
of books did you read for work? Include reading from a portion of the book such as skimming
or reading a chapter. Include classroom text, scholarly, or review books read in print or
electronic format.” We are more concerned with the relative amounts than the actual
number, and for convenience, we often report readings per year by multiplying the
monthly total by 12. Only 16% of the respondents report zero book readings; zero
readings are included in the average. Faculty members in the United States report an
average of seven book or book chapter readings per month or approximately 84 per year
(M=6.80, SD=9.218). 8 Sixty-four percent read from three or more books or book chapters
in the past month (Table 36).
8
Excludes outliers over 60. Including the outliers, the mean is 7.43.
63
\
We followed the same variation of critical incident technique we used in the article
section by asking respondents to focus on the last scholarly book reading. We explicitly
stated, “The following questions in this section refer to the BOOK FROM WHICH YOU READ
MOST RECENTLY. Note that this last reading may not be typical, but will help us establish the
range of reading patterns across a range of academic staff, disciplines, and institutions.” We
assume the book readings will be a random sample of readings and will give us detailed
information on a wide range of scholarly book readings. We asked the respondents to list
the title or topic of the last book or book chapter they read, in order to help the respondent
focus on the last reading from a book, book chapter, or part of a book.
Total Time of Book Reading
We asked, “On how many occasions did you read from this book in the past month (30
days)” and “About how much total time (in minutes) did you spend reading this book in the
past month (30 days)?” We did not define what constitutes an occasion, and so an occasion
could be any length of time. On average, faculty members read from a book or book
chapter on three occasions (M=5.05, SD=6.068). 9 Fifteen percent of book or book chapter
readings occur on only one occasion, while 36% are read on five or more occasions (Table
37).
9
Excludes two outliers over 60. Including outlier the mean is 23.308.
64
Table 37. Occasions of Last Book Reading by US Faculty
0
1
2
3-4
5-10
Over 10
Total
Frequency
5
75
100
141
138
42
501
Percent
1.0
15.0
20.0
28.1
27.5
8.4
100.0
The average time spent reading, including on all occasions of reading, is one hour
and forty minutes (M=101.2356, SD=107.750). 10 Forty-six percent of book readings take
over one hour (Table 38). Only 12% of book or book chapter readings are fifteen minutes
or less.
Table 38. Time Spent on Last Book Reading by US Faculty
Minutes
0-15
16-30
31-60
61-120
Over 120
Total
Source of Book and Time to Become Aware
Frequency
58
107
106
113
117
501
Percent
11.6
21.4
21.2
22.6
23.4
100.0
After establishing the last book reading and how long they spent per reading, we
focused on how they became aware of the book from which they read. We asked, “How did
you or someone on your behalf become aware of this last book from which you read?” We
kept the question and answers similar to the last article reading, and maintained the same
definitions of browsing and searching. The last book or book chapter readings are found
10
Excludes outliers over 600. Including outlier the mean is 111.35.
65
through a variety of methods: 24% through another person, 17% through searching, and
15% through a citation (Table 39). Twenty-four percent are found through a source we did
not list in our answer choices; these included texts for teaching, personal library,
complimentary copies, from s/he authored, a corporate library, a library search, browsing
a bookstore. On respondent explains his/her reliance upon library stacks for browsing,
“Browsing for books in the stacks is an essential research technique. My students and I
often find books we could not locate using electronic databases--most recent example: my
students and I were researching an ethnic minority-Karen refugees in Burma. By browsing
in [the library] stacks, we found ‘True Love and Bartholomew: Rebels on the Burmese
Border,’ a critical work on the culture of Karen people. Although I thought we had done a
thorough job of searching the databases, the book was not an obvious source and one that
we would have certainly overlooked. Thank you for keeping the stacks open for browsing!”
We did not ask the respondents to tell us what sources they browse or search.
Table 39. How US Faculty Initially Become Aware of Books
Frequency
32
87
76
121
29
Found while browsing
Found while searching
Cited in another publication.
Another person told me about it
Promotional email or web
advertisement
Don’t know or don’t remember
Other
Total
40
118
503
66
Percent
6.4
17.3
15.1
24.1
5.8
8.0
23.5
100.0
Faculty members spend an average of eleven minutes becoming aware of a book or
book chapter reading (M=11.09, SD=13.985), 11 and over half (58%) of the readings take
less than five minutes to find. Readings found by searching (M=18.68) take, on average,
more time to become aware of than those found by browsing (M=17.16), through a citation
(M=13.09), through another person (M=9.57) or a promotional email or advertisement
(M=7.48).
Obtaining the Book
We asked, “After you became aware of this book, from where did you obtain it?” The
wording was kept similar to the other sections for comparison, but the answer choices
were modified to reflect the different sources for books. Thirty-nine percent of the last
book readings are purchased and 22% are from the library or archives collection (Table
40). One faculty member states, “Often, I would buy the book if I could find a source. For
some resources, if they were not available through the University library, I would not know
where to get them.” Publishers (18%) and colleagues (13%) are also popular sources of
book readings. “Other” sources include: Amazon, a previously purchased book, borrowed
from a community or public library, a PDF online, Google Books, and their own publications
11
Excludes outliers over 60. Including the outliers, the mean is 15.97.
67
Table 40. How US Faculty Obtain Books
I bought it for myself 12
• Print
• Electronic
The library or archives collection 13
• Print
• Electronic
Interlibrary loan or document
delivery service (print)
School or department collection
(print)
A colleague, author or other person
provided it to me
• Print
• Electronic
A free, advance, or purchased copy
from the publisher 14
• Print
• Electronic
Other source
• Print
• Electronic
Total
Frequency
198
(188)
(9)
108
(101)
(6)
24
Percent
39.4 (100.0)
(95.4)
(4.6)
21.5 (100.0)
(94.4)
(5.6)
4.8 (100.0)
40
8.0 (100.0)
10
(36)
(4)
88
(80)
(7)
35
(19)
(16)
503
2.0 (100.0)
(90.0)
(10.0)
17.5 (100.0)
(92.0)
(8.0)
7.0 (100.0)
(54.3)
(45.7)
100.0
Much has been discussed recently about the future of electronic books. A 2009
CIBER study in the U.K. found that 65% of staff and students have read an e-book for work,
study, or leisure, and over half of those readings were obtained through the library
(51.9%). Similar studies in the U.S. have also shown that e-books are gaining in popularity
and are a valuable library resource (Shelburne 2009; Folb et al. 2011). In our study, we
found 8% of the book readings (42 of 503) are obtained from an electronic source,
including 6% of the library-provided books. Faculty in the United States read fewer e-
Only 187 of the 188 respondents who selected “I bought it myself” revealed the format of the book.
Only 107 of the 108 respondents who selected “library or archives” revealed the format of the book.
14 Only 87 of the 88 respondents who selected “free, advance, or purchased copy from the publisher” revealed
the format of the book.
12
13
68
books than graduate students (12%, 91 of 757) or undergraduate students (12%, 55 of
460). While electronic resources for books have yet to reach the popularity as journals, ebooks are becoming a part of academic culture.
Alternative to Obtain Book
Contingent valuation determines values by assuming if the information is important
the respondent will try multiple methods to obtain the information, but their initial source
is the most convenient. We asked, “Thinking back to where you obtained the book (e.g.,
library collection, department collection, interlibrary loan, etc.), where would you obtain the
information if that source were not available?” Only 5% of respondents would not bother
getting the information from another source (57 of 495). We did not specify what
alternative source they would use.
Nearly all of the readings from purchased books (93%) and inter-library loan
readings (92%), and 84% of library books would be obtained from another source if the
original source were no longer available. Sixteen percent of library readings, 15% of
readings obtained through a colleague or other person, 13% of publisher readings, 10% of
school/department readings, and 8% of interlibrary loan readings would not be obtained if
the original source were no longer available. Therefore, value to academic work would be
lost if the library collection were not available.
Purpose and Value of Book Reading
The last set of questions focuses on the principal purpose of the last book reading
and the value and importance of the reading. We asked, “For what principal purpose did you
69
use, or do you plan to use, the information obtained from the book you last read?” As with
article readings, research and teaching are the most frequent principal purposes of reading
(Table 41). Forty-one percent of the last book or book chapter readings are for the
principal purpose of research and 34% are for teaching. Book readings also support other
purposes beside the choices listed in the answer selection; these include more than one
principal purpose, for a book review, “my job” and training, and “for a textbook I am
writing.”
Table 41. Principal Purpose of Book Reading by US Faculty
Frequency
Research
204
Teaching
170
Administration
7
Current awareness/keeping up
21
Writing proposals, reports, etc.
31
Consulting or advising
10
Internal or external presentations
5
Continuing education for self
35
Other
17
Total
500
Percent
40.8
34.0
1.4
4.2
6.2
2.0
1.0
7.0
3.4
100.0
More book readings are obtained through purchases than through the library or any
other means. Sixty percent of readings for presentations, 57% for current awareness, 42%
for teaching, 40% for consulting/advising, 37% for continuing education, 36% for research,
32% for writing, and 29% for administrative purposes are obtained through purchases.
Only 29% of continuing education and research readings, 23% for writing, 19% for current
awareness, 13% for teaching, and 10% for consulting/advising are obtained through the
library. No book readings for the principal purposes of presentations or administrative
duties are obtained through the library.
70
In relation to the principal purpose, we asked, “How important is the information
contained in this book to achieving your principal purpose?” Nearly all (99%) of the book or
book chapter readings are considered at least “somewhat important” (Table 42). Over half
(59%) are considered “absolutely essential” or “very important” to the principal purpose
(293 of 500).
Table 42. Importance of Book Reading to US Faculty Principal Purpose
Absolutely essential
Very Important
Important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Total
Frequency
127
166
125
77
5
500
Percent
25.4
33.2
25.0
15.4
1.0
100.0
We found a significant association between where a book reading is obtained and its
importance (χ2=39.100, p=.027). Readings obtained through a school/department
subscription (80%), 64% of purchases, and two-thirds of interlibrary loan and publisher
copies are considered “very important” or absolutely essential.” Half of the readings
obtained through the library are considered “very important” or “absolutely essential.”
Readings for teaching, writing, and consulting/advising are considered more important
than readings for other purposes (χ2=72.435, p<.0001). Sixty-nine percent of book
readings for teaching, 61% for writing, and 70% for consulting/advising are considered
“very important” or “absolutely essential.”
71
Outcomes of Book Reading
To better understand how book readings are important to the principal purpose, we
asked, “In what ways did the reading of the book affect the principal purpose?” The most
frequent outcomes are: “inspired new thinking,” “narrowed/broadened/changed the
focus,” and “improved the result” were the most frequent outcomes (Table 43). Less than
one percent book readings are considered a waste of time. While less than one percent of
book readings by faculty members (0.6%, 3 of 509) and just 2% of the readings by graduate
students (18 of 774) in the United States are considered a waste of time, 6% of the readings
by undergraduate students (28 of 463) are considered a waste of time.
Table 43. Outcome of Book Reading for US Faculty*
Frequency Percent
Improved the result
285
56.0
Inspired new thinking
282
55.4
Narrowed/broadened/changed the
focus
128
25.1
Saved time or resources
120
23.6
Resulted in faster completion
76
14.9
Resolved technical problems
76
14.9
It made me question my work
39
7.7
Others
36
7.1
Resulted in collaboration/joint research
26
5.1
Wasted time
3
0.6
Total
509
*Respondents could select more than one outcome.
Nearly half (47%) of the book or book chapter readings will be cited or have been
cited (Table 44). A quarter of the readings will not be cited. Readings considered more
important to the principal purpose are more likely to be cited (p<.0001).
72
Table 44. Citation of Last Book Reading by US Faculty
No
Maybe
Already cited
Will in the future
Total
Frequency
137
128
118
116
499
73
Percent
27.5
25.7
23.6
23.2
100.0
Differences of Book Reading Patterns by Demographics
74
Differences of Reading Patterns by Discipline
Humanists read more books than other disciplines (F=23.037, p<.0001), though
medical science faculty spend more time per book reading (F=4.371, p=.001) (Table 45).
Humanists read, on average, fourteen books per month (M=14.01). Social scientists read
five books (M=5.18), followed by engineering/technology/math faculty (M=4.65), science
faculty (M=4.46), and medical science faculty (M=3.85). Medical scientists spend, on
average, two hours and twenty-four minutes per book reading (M=134.31), followed by
humanities (M=122.87), social scientists (M=103.07), engineering/technology/math
faculty (M=80.46), and scientists (M=62.37).
Table 45. Number of Book Readings and Time Spent Reading for US Faculty by
Discipline
Number of
book
readings
Sciences
Medical Sciences
Engineering/
Technology / Math
Social Sciences
Humanities
4.46
3.85
4.65
5.18
14.01
Time spent
per book
reading
(minutes)
62.37
134.31
80.46
103.07
122.87
We found a significant difference between academic discipline and how the
respondent becomes aware of a book reading (χ2=52.744, p=.006). Twenty-six percent of
scientists, 26% of social scientists, 21% of medical scientists, 21% of humanists, and 18%
of engineering/technology/math faculty discover book readings through a colleague or
other person. Book readings by humanists (26%) are more frequently discovered through
a citation, but only 15% of the readings by social scientists, 11% by medical scientists, 10%
75
by scientists, and just 4% by engineering/technology/math faculty are discovered through
a citation.
Most book readings across disciplines are obtained through personal purchases
(χ2=43.901, p=.049). Forty-two percent of the readings by scientists and social scientists,
39% by engineering/technology/math faculty, 37% by humanists, and 28% by medical
scientists are obtained through personal purchases. Medical science faculty book readings
are slightly more frequently obtained through a publisher. Only 19% of the book readings
by scientists, 18% by engineering/technology/math faculty, 16% by social scientists, and
13% by humanists are obtained through a publisher.
We found a significant difference in discipline and format of reading (χ2=21.796,
p=.001). An overwhelming majority (90-97%) of the book readings by faculty in the
sciences, medical sciences, social sciences, and the humanities are read in print form.
However, only 77% of the book readings by engineering/technology/math faculty are read
in print form; twenty-three percent are read in an electronic format.
A majority of readings by each discipline are for the principal purpose of research
and teaching (χ2=71.345, p=.002). Fifty-three percent of the book readings by humanists
read for the principal purpose of research, followed by 52% of scientists’ readings, 46% of
engineering/technology/math faculty readings, and 10% of medical scientists’ readings
(Table 46).
76
Table 46. Association between Principal Purpose of Book Reading and Discipline of
US Faculty
Engineering
Medical
Social
Row
Sciences
/Technology
Humanities Other
Sciences
Sciences
Total
/Math
42
3
26
61
67
3
202
Research
51.9% 10.3%
46.4%
34.5%
52.8%
13.0% 41%
23
19
17
67
32
9
167
Teaching
28.4% 65.5%
30.4%
37.9%
25.2%
39.1% 33.9%
0
0
0
4
1
1
6
Administration
0%
0%
0%
2.3%
0.8%
4.3% 1.2%
Current
2
0
1
9
5
3
21
Awareness
2.5%
0%
1.8%
5.1%
4.7%
13.0% 4.3%
Writing
proposals,
5
3
1
10
11
1
31
reports,
6.2%
10.3%
1.8%
5.6%
8.7%
4.3% 6.3%
articles, etc.
Consulting/
1
0
1
5
3
0
10
advising, etc.
1.2%
0%
1.8%
2.8%
2.4%
0%
2.0%
Internal or
2
0
0
2
1
0
5
external
2.5%
0%
0%
1.1%
0.8%
0%
1.0%
presentations
Continuing
1
1
3
6
3
3
34
education for
1.2%
3.4%
5.4%
3.4%
2.4%
13.0% 6.9%
self
1
1
3
6
3
3
17
Others
1.2%
3.4%
5.4%
3.4%
2.4%
13.0% 3.4%
81
29
56
177
127
23
493
Column Total
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Book readings by engineering/technology/math faculty are less important to the
principal purpose of reading that book readings by other disciplines (χ2=38.133, p=.009).
Seventy percent of the readings by humanists, 69% by medical scientists, 59% by social
scientists, and 52% by scientists are considered “very important” or “absolutely essential.”
Only 38% by the readings by engineering/technology/math faculty are considered “very
important” or “absolutely essential.”
77
Engineering/technology/math faculty also do not report as many citations from
these book readings (χ2=45.786, p<.0001). Sixty-three percent of the book readings by
humanists, 55% by medical scientists, 47% by social scientists, and 43% by scientists have
been or will be cited. Only one-quarter of the readings by engineering/technology/math
faculty have been or will be cited. Forty-two percent of the readings by
engineering/technology/math faculty will not be cited.
Differences of Reading Patterns by Position, Age, and Productivity
We found a significant difference between academic position and number of book
readings (F=6.053, p=<.0001) and time spent reading (F=4.112, p=.001) (Table 47).
Assistant professors read, on average, nine books per month (M=9.01), followed by
adjuncts (M=8.43), associate professors (M=8.31), professors (M=7.10), and
instructors/lecturers (M=6.33). Instructors/lecturers spend, on average, approximately
two hours and twenty minutes per book reading (M=131.72), followed by associate
professors (M=125.72), assistant professors (M=111.26), adjuncts (M=91.20), and
professors (M=85.23).
78
Table 47. Number of Book Readings and Time Spent Reading for US Faculty by
Academic Status
Number of
book
readings
Professors
Associate Professors
Assistant Professors
Instructors /
Lecturers
Adjuncts
7.10
8.31
9.01
6.33
8.43
Time spent
per book
reading
(minutes)
85.23
125.72
111.26
131.72
91.20
Regardless of academic position, most faculty obtain book readings through
personal purchases (χ2=63.418, p<.0001). Over half (52%)of book readings by adjuncts,
45% by professors, 39% by associate professors and “other” positions, and 37% by
assistant professors are obtained through purchases (Table 48). However, only 16% of the
readings by instructors/lecturers are obtained through purchases.
79
Table 48. Association between and Academic Position of US Faculty and Where They
Obtain Book Readings
Associate Assistant Instructor
Row
Professor
Adjunct Other
Professor Professor /Lecturer
Total
I bought it
57
42
40
5
13
35
192
myself
44.9%
38.9%
36.7%
15.6%
52.0%
38.5% 39.0%
The library or
22
30
28
9
5
14
108
archives
17.3%
27.8%
25.7%
28.1%
20.0%
15.4% 22.0%
collection
Interlibrary
6
5
10
0
0
3
24
loan
4.7%
4.6%
9.2%
0%
0%
3.3%
4.9%
School / dept.
2
1
1
3
0
3
10
collection
1.6%
0.9%
0.9%
9.4%
0%
3.3%
2.0%
A colleague,
13
3
4
3
2
14
39
author, or other
10.2%
2.8%
3.7%
9.4%
8.0%
15.4% 7.9%
person
A free, advance,
or purchased
19
23
21
8
5
9
85
copy from a
15.0%
21.3%
19.3%
25.0%
20.0%
9.9% 17.3%
publisher
8
4
5
4
0
13
34
Others
6.3%
3.7%
4.6%
12.5%
0%
14.3% 6.9%
127
108
109
32
25
91
492
Column Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Regardless of academic position, respondents report reading for research and
teaching more than any other purposes (χ2=104.446, p<.0001). Nearly half of the readings
by associate professors (45%) and assistant professors (45%), 44% by professors, 42% by
“other” positions, 20% by adjuncts, and 16% by instructors/lecturers read for the principal
purpose of research (Table 49). Sixty-two percent of the readings by instructors/lecturers,
however, are read for teaching, followed by 40% by adjuncts, 39% by assistant professors,
38% by associate professors, and 35% by professors.
80
Table 49. Association between Principal Purpose of Book Reading and Academic
Position of US Faculty
Associate Assistant Instructor
Row
Professor
Adjunct Other
Professor Professor /Lecturer
Total
56
49
49
5
5
38
202
Research
44.1%
45.4%
45.0%
15.6%
20.0%
41.8% 41.1%
45
41
42
20
10
8
166
Teaching
35.4%
38.0%
38.5%
62.5%
40.0%
8.8% 33.7%
1
1
1
1
2
0
6
Administration
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
3.1%
8.0%
0%
1.2%
Current
5
3
3
2
2
6
21
Awareness
3.9%
2.8%
2.8%
6.3%
8.0%
6.6%
4.3%
Writing
proposals,
4
10
5
0
1
11
31
reports, articles, 3.1%
9.3%
4.6%
0%
4.0%
12.1% 6.3%
etc.
Consulting/
3
0
1
0
0
6
10
advising, etc.
2.4%
0%
0.9%
0%
0%
6.6%
2.3%
Internal or
2
0
0
0
0
3
5
external
1.6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3.3%
1.0%
presentations
Continuing
8
3
3
3
3
14
34
education for
6.3%
2.8%
2.8%
9.4%
12.0%
15.4% 6.9%
self
3
1
5
1
2
5
17
Others
2.4%
0.9%
4.6%
3.1%
8.0%
5.5%
3.5%
127
108
109
32
25
91
492
Column Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
We found some differences in academic position and the importance of the book
reading to the principal purpose of reading (χ2=28.589, p=.096). Sixty-six percent of the
readings by instructors/lecturers, 64% by assistant professors, 62% by associate
professors, 60% by adjuncts, 54% by professors, and 52% by “other” positions such as
academic professionals or research positions are considered “very important” or
“absolutely essential.”
We found a significant difference in academic position and whether the book will be
cited (χ2=38.562, p=.001). Sixty percent of associate professors, 51% by professors, half of
81
assistant professors, 39% by “other” positions, one-quarter of instructors/lecturers, and
18% of adjuncts have been or will be cited.
We did not find significant associations between the respondents’ academic position
and how they became aware of the book reading or format of reading.
Faculty in their fifties read more books than other age groups (F=2.996, p=.018) and
spend more time per book reading (F=1.646, p=.162) (Table 50). Faculty in their fifties
read nine books per month (M=8.69), followed by faculty over sixty (M=7.04), faculty in
their forties (M=6.70), and faculty in their thirties (M=6.43). Faculty in their twenties read
the fewest books per month (M=3.08). Faculty in their fifties spend, on average, two hours
per book reading (M=120.49), followed by faculty in their forties (M=97.58), faculty in their
thirties (M=97.19), faculty over sixty (M=88.31). Faculty in their twenties also spend the
least amount of time per book reading (M=82.93).
Table 50. Number of Book Readings and Time Spent Reading for US Faculty by Age
Range
Number of
book
readings
Under 30 years
31-40 years
41-50 years
51-60 years
Over 60 years
3.08
6.43
6.70
8.69
7.04
Time spent
per book
reading
(minutes)
82.93
97.19
97.58
120.49
88.31
We found some differences in age and whether the book will be cited (χ2=17.151,
p=.144). Fifty-four percent of the readings by faculty in their forties, half by those in their
fifties, 48% by faculty over sixty, 43% by faculty in their thirties, and 46% by faculty in
82
their twenties have been or will be cited. We found no other significant differences
between age and book reading patterns.
Book readings by female faculty are more important to the principal purpose of
reading (χ2=12.706, p=.013). Sixty percent of the readings by women and 57% by men are
considered “very important” or “absolutely essential.” Twenty-eight percent of the
readings male faculty and 22% by female faculty are considered “important.” We found no
other significant differences between gender and book reading patterns.
Faculty who won an award in the last two years read more books per month
(F=4.439, p=.036). Award-winning faculty read, on average, eight books per month, while
those who had not won an award read six books per month. Faculty who publish more
also read more books (F=6.540, p=.002). Faculty who published between three and ten
items read, on average, eight books per month, faculty who published more than ten items
read six books per month, and faculty who published no more than two items only read
four books per month.
83
Other Publication Reading
84
This section focuses on the other types of publications that may inform academic
work but which are not journal article or book readings. We left the definition relatively
broad, and the “other publications” encompass a wide range of items, including
government documents, trade journals, and conference proceedings. The 2011 study in the
United Kingdom is the first time the Tenopir and King surveys have included other
publication readings (Tenopir et al. 2012).
Total Amount of Other Publication Reading
As in the previous sections, we started the section by defining terms and asking
respondents to estimate total readings in the past month. We asked, “In the past month (30
days), approximately how many other publications or parts of publications (non-article or
book readings) have you read for your work? Include conference proceedings, government
documents, technical reports, magazines, trade journals, etc.” Faculty members in the United
States read an average of ten other publications per month or 120 per year if multiplied by
12 for an approximation of the annual total (M=10.03, SD=16.333). 15 Twenty-eight percent
of the respondents did not read any other publications in the past month, and therefore,
the responses for this section are lower than earlier sections. Zero readings are included in
the average number of other publication readings.
Type of Other Publications Read and Total Time of Reading
As in the article and book reading sections, we used the critical incident technique to
focus the questions on the other publication most recently read, regardless if it is typical.
15
Excludes outliers over 100. Including outliers the mean is 14.53.
85
Since the type of publication could vary, we asked what type of other publication they most
recently read. Just over one-third (34%) of the last other publication readings are from
magazine/trade journals (Table 51). Other publication readings also include: news sources
(24%), government documents or other technical reports (18%), and conference
proceedings (11%). Respondents also reported readings from other publications not listed
in our answer choices; these include: novels, dissertations, book chapter, Digital
Humanities project, blogs professional journals, scientific journals, research abstracts, and
unspecified web sources.
Table 51. Type of Last Other Publication Reading by US Faculty
Frequency Percent
47
10.9
79
18.4
Conference proceeding
Government/technical
document
Magazine/trade journal
News source
Other
Total
146
101
57
430
34.0
23.5
13.3
100.0
The average time spent per other publication reading is twenty-nine minutes
(M=29.05, SD=33.365). 16 Only 9% of the other publication readings are over one hour, and
only 29% are under eleven minutes (Table 52).
16
Excludes outliers over 240. Including outliers the mean is 35.41.
86
Table 52. Time Spent on Last Other Publication Reading by US Faculty
Minutes
0
1-10
11-30
31-60
61-90
Over 90
Total
Frequency
1
124
211
54
11
26
427
Percent
0.2
29.0
49.4
12.6
2.6
6.1
100.0
Government documents take an average of thirty-five minutes per reading
(M=34.58), followed by magazine/trade journals (M=32.61), conference proceedings
(M=26.89), and news sources (M=19.24).
Time to Become Aware of and Obtain Other Publication
While we did not ask what source they used to become aware of the last other
publication reading, we did ask, “About how much time did you or someone on your behalf
spend becoming aware of this publication?” Faculty members spend less time, on average,
becoming aware of other publications than articles or books. The average time to become
aware of the other publication is six minutes (M=6.35, SD=10.648). 17 Half (51%) of the
other publication readings take less than eleven minutes, and only 16% of the reading
takes over ten minutes of which to become aware. On average, the respondents spent the
most time becoming aware of conference proceedings (M=9.60), followed by government
documents (M=9.42), news sources (M=6.60), and magazine/trade journals (M=3.97).
We then asked, “After you became aware of the publication, from where did you
obtain it?” One-quarter of other publications are obtained from an electronic source (102 of
17
Excludes outliers over 60. Including outliers the mean is 8.07.
87
416). Forty-five percent of the last other publication readings are obtained from a website
(Table 53). Only 8% are obtained from the library. Other publications are also frequently
obtained by purchasing (20%) and through another person (8%) or publisher (6%).
“Other” sources include: email alerts, listservs, a conference, directly from an author,
Google, as part of an organization membership, and newspapers.
Table 53. How US Faculty Obtain Other Publications
I bought it for myself
• Print
• Electronic
Website
• Print
• Electronic
The library or archives
• Print
• Electronic
Interlibrary loan
• Print
• Electronic
A colleague, author or other person
provided it to me
• Print
• Electronic
A free, advanced, or purchased copy
from publisher
• Print
• Electronic
Other
• Print
• Electronic
Total
Frequency
85
(75)
(10)
186
(2)
(184)
33
(9)
(23)
6
(4)
(2)
31
Percent
20.4 (100.0)
(88.2)
(11.8)
44.7 (100.0)
(1.1)
(98.9)
7.9 (100.0)
(28.1)
(71.9)
1.4 (100.0)
(66.7)
(33.3)
7.5 (100.0)
(23)
(1)
51
(23)
(27)
416
(95.8)
(4.2)
12.3 (100.0)
(46.0)
(54.0)
100.0
(10)
(21)
24
(32.3)
(67.7)
5.8 (100.0)
Three-quarters of government documents, 54% of news sources, 38% of conference
proceedings, and 21% of magazine/trade journals are obtained through a website. 38% of
magazine/trade journals and 28% of news sources are also purchased. One respondent
88
comments, “Online access to scholarly journals, working papers, conference papers, etc. as
well as online databases is essential for my work and that of my colleagues.”
Alternative Source to Obtain Other Publication
Based on contingent valuation, value can also be measured based on whether the
respondent would obtain the reading from another source (Imholz and Arns 2007). To
help gauge value, we asked, “Thinking back to where you obtained the publication, where
would you obtain the information if that source were not available?” Forty-two percent of
the readings would not be obtained from another source if the original were no longer
available (178 of 425). Just over three-quarters (76%) of other publications obtained from
a library collection would be obtained from an alternative source if the library were no
longer available. Over half of the readings obtained through a publisher, 44% through a
colleague, 43% through a website, and one-third of purchased readings would not be
obtained from another source if the original source were no longer available. In addition,
29% of interlibrary loan and one-quarter of the other publication readings obtained
through the library would not be obtained through another source. Value to academic
work would be lost if these sources were not available.
Half (49%) of magazine/trade journals, 45% of news sources, 39% of government
documents, and 36% of conference proceedings would not be obtained from an alternative
source if the original source were no longer available.
89
Purpose and Value of Other Publication Reading
The principal purpose of the information in the reading provides a picture of the
purpose, value and outcomes from the reading, which usage data cannot provide. Current
awareness is the most frequent principal purpose of other publication readings. Thirtyseven percent of the other publication readings are for current awareness/keeping up
(Table 54). Other publication readings also support research (29%), teaching (17%), and
continuing education (12%). The other principal purposes are cooking, “artistic,” fun,
general information, “my own edification,” “research and teaching,” and “monitoring
system resource usage on computers.”
Table 54. Principal Purpose of Other Publication Reading by US Faculty
Frequency
124
72
7
143
8
6
5
51
10
426
Research
Teaching
Administration
Current awareness/keeping up
Writing proposals, reports, etc.
Consulting, advising others
Internal & external presentations
Continuing education for self
Other
Total
Percent
29.1
16.9
1.6
33.6
1.9
1.4
1.2
12.0
2.3
100.0
Seventy-two percent of conference proceedings (34 of 47), 46% of government
documents (36 of 79), and 18% of magazine/trade journals (26 of 145) are read for
research. Nearly half of news articles (49 of 100), and 41% of magazine/trade journals
(60) are read for current awareness. Twenty-one percent of news articles (21) are also
read for teaching, followed by 19% of magazine/trade journal readings (27), 15% of
government documents (12), and just 4% of conference proceedings.
90
To learn how the reading affects the principal purpose, we posed a series of
questions starting with, “How important is the information contained in this publication to
achieving your principal purpose?” Other publication readings tend to be considered
“somewhat important” and “important” to the principal purpose, rather than “very
important” or “absolutely essential” (Table 55). Thirty-eight percent of other publication
readings are considered “somewhat important” (160 of 424). Only 9% are considered
absolutely essential.
Table 55. Importance of Other Publication Reading to US Faculty Principal Purpose
Not at all important
Somewhat important
Important
Very important
Absolutely essential
Total
Frequency
9
160
145
71
39
424
Percent
2.1
37.7
34.2
16.7
9.2
100.0
Readings for consulting/advising and administrative purposes are considered more
important to the principal purpose than other readings (χ2=90.178, p<.0001). Eighty-three
percent of consulting/advising readings and 43% of readings for administrative purposes
are considered “very important” or “absolutely essential.” Only 40% of readings for
presentations, 37% for teaching, 31% for research, one-quarter of readings for writing,
17% for current awareness, and just 14% for continuing education are considered “very
important” or “absolutely essential.” By contrast, 20% of readings for presentations, 3%
for current awareness, and 2% for continuing education are considered “not at all
important,” while no reading for research, teaching, administrative purposes, writing or
consulting is considered “not at all important.”
91
The specific outcomes of the reading also provide insight into its importance and
value. Inspired new thinking, improved the result, and narrowed/broadened/changed the
focus of the principal purpose are the most frequent outcomes (Table 56). Only 3% of the
other publication readings is considered a waste of time. The other outcomes of reading
include improve general knowledge, awareness, “just interesting,” and “no affect.” One
respondent explains, “It supported a contention I was making in an article,” while another
noted that “it made connections between literary reading and its historical context.”
Table 56. Outcomes of Other Publication Reading for US Faculty*
Frequency
219
156
Percent
50.0
35.6
Inspired new thinking
Improved the result
Narrowed/broadened/changed the
focus
86
19.6
Saved time or resources
70
16.0
Others
37
8.4
Resolved technical problems
29
6.6
Resulted in faster completion
25
5.7
Made me question my work
24
5.5
Resulted in collaboration/joint
research
16
3.7
Wasted time
11
2.5
Total
438
*Respondents could select more than one.
Unlike article or book readings, other publications are less likely to be cited. Only
21% of the other publication readings have been cited or will be cited (Table 57). Slightly
over half (52%) of the readings will not be cited.
92
Table 57. Citation of Last Other Publication Reading by US Faculty
No
Maybe
Already cited
Will in the future
Total
Frequency
221
113
36
53
423
93
Percent
52.2
26.7
8.5
12.5
100.0
Differences of Other Publication Reading Patterns by
Demographics
94
Differences of Reading Patterns by Discipline
Faculty members in the social sciences report more other publication readings than
respondents in the other disciplines (F=.547, p=.740). Social scientists report eleven other
publications per month (M=11.39), followed by humanists (M=9.96), scientists (M=9.59),
engineering/technology/math faculty (M=8.70), and scientists (M=8.59). We found no
significant differences in discipline and time spent reading.
We found a significant difference between discipline and type of other publication
(χ2=50.505, p<.0001). Forty-two percent of the other publication readings by scientists are
magazine/trade journals, followed by 41% of the readings by humanists, 37% by
engineering/technology/math faculty, 24% by social scientists, 12% by medical scientists,
and 7% by “other” academic positions (Table 58).
95
Table 58. Association between Type of Other Publication Reading and Discipline of
US Faculty
Engineering
Row
Medical /Technology
Social
Sciences Sciences
/ Math
Sciences Humanities Others Total
Conference
9
2
11
14
10
1
47
proceeding
12.7%
7.7%
26.8%
8.5%
10.8%
3.6% 11.1%
Government
16
8
5
39
9
2
79
document or
other
22.5%
30.8%
12.2%
23.8%
9.7%
7.1% 18.7%
technical
report
Magazine/
30
5
15
40
38
16
144
trade journal
42.3%
19.2%
36.6%
24.4%
40.9%
57.1% 34.0%
News source
9
7
3
49
25
5
98
12.7%
26.9%
7.3%
29.9%
26.9%
17.9% 23.2%
Other (Please
7
4
7
22
11
4
55
specify):
9.9%
15.4%
17.1%
13.4%
11.8%
14.3% 13.0%
Column Total
71
26
41
164
93
28
423
100.0 100.0
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
%
%
Other publication readings by faculty in “other” academic positions and the
humanities are more likely to obtain other publication through a personal purchase
(χ2=52.320, p=.007). Thirty-six percent of other publication readings by respondents in
“other” academic positions and one-third by humanities (32%) are obtained through
personal purchases, while only 23% by medical science respondents, 19% by social science
respondents, 13% by science respondents, and 13% by engineering/technology/math
respondents are obtained through purchases (Table 59).
96
Table 59. Association between Discipline and Where US Faculty Obtain an Other
Publication Reading
Engineering/
Medical Technology/ Social
Row
Sciences Sciences
Math
Sciences Humanities Other Total
I bought it myself
9
6
5
31
30
10
91
12.7%
23.1%
12.5%
19.0%
32.3%
35.7% 21.6%
Website
31
13
23
79
31
6
183
43.7%
50.0%
57.5%
48.5%
33.3%
21.4% 43.5%
Library or
5
3
3
11
9
2
33
Archives
7.0%
11.5%
7.5%
6.7%
9.7%
7.1% 7.8%
Interlibrary loan
0
0
0
1
6
0
7
0%
0%
0%
0.6%
6.5%
0%
1.7%
A colleague,
author, or other
person provided
8
1
2
13
7
1
32
it to me
11.3%
3.8%
5.0%
8.0%
7.5%
3.6% 7.6%
A free advanced,
or purchased
copy from
6
2
3
9
2
2
24
publisher
8.5%
7.7%
7.5%
5.5%
2.2%
7.1% 5.7%
Other
12
1
5
19
8
7
51
16.9%
3.8%
10.0%
11.7%
8.6%
25.0% 12.1%
Column Total
71
26
40
163
93
28
421
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Readings by humanities faculty are just as likely to be print or electronic, while
other disciplines overwhelmingly favor electronic resources (χ2=13.535, p=.019). Fortynine percent of the readings by humanities faculty are print resources while 51% are
electronic resources. By contrast, 73% of the readings by medical science faculty, 71% by
social science faculty, 69% by engineering/technology/math faculty, and 61% by science
faculty are electronic.
Readings by faculty members in the engineering/technology/math fields (46%),
humanities (33%) and medical science disciplines (31%) are more likely to be read for
research, whereas those by faculty in the sciences (37%) and social sciences (31%) are
97
mostly likely to read for current awareness (χ2=50.234, p=.129). Only 28% of the
readings by scientists and 26% by social scientists are for research. Only 36% of the
readings by engineering/technology/math faculty, 32% by humanists, and 27% by medical
scientists are read for current awareness.
We found some differences in discipline and whether the other publication will be
cited (χ2=19.692, p=.184). Thirty-eight percent of the other publication readings by
medical science faculty have been or will be cited. However, only 23% of the readings by
social science faculty, 20% of humanities faculty, 20% by engineering/technology/math
faculty, and just 17% by science faculty have been or will be cited. Furthermore, 59% of
science faculty readings and 55% by engineering/technology/math faculty will not be
cited.
Differences of Reading Patterns by Position, Age, Gender, and Productivity
Associate professors report less other publication readings than respondents in the
other positions (F=2.452, p=.033). Associate professors report, on average, thirteen other
publications per month (M=13.25), followed by adjuncts (M=13.07), professors (M=11.48),
assistant professors (M=8.72), and instructors/lecturers (M=6.29). “Other” positions such
as academic professional or research associate report eight other publications per month
(M=7.53). We found no significant difference between academic position and time spent
per reading.
We found some differences between academic position and type of other
publication reading (χ2=32.063, p=.043). Over half (52%) of the readings by
instructors/lecturers, 41% by adjuncts, 36% by “other” positions, and 31% by professors
98
are magazines/trade journals, but only one-third of assistant professor readings and 28%
of associate professor readings are magazines/trade journals. Associate professor and
assistant professor readings are from a great variety of sources. Thirty-two percent of the
readings by associate professors are news sources, 22% are government documents, and
7% are conference proceedings. Twenty percent of the readings by assistant professors
are news sources, 19% are government documents, and 18% are conference proceedings.
Instructors/lecturers report more other publication readings for continuing
education than other academic positions (χ2=64.889, p=.008). Thirty percent of the
readings by instructors/lecturers are read for continuing education, followed by 18% of
the readings by adjuncts, 14% by professors, 13% by “other” academic positions, 10% by
associate professors, and just 4% by assistant professors. Table 60 shows the breakdown
between academic positions and principal purpose of other publication readings.
99
Table 60. Association between Principal Purpose of Other Publication Reading and
Academic Position of US Faculty
Associate Assistant Instructors /
Row
Professors
Adjuncts Other
Professors Professors Lecturers
Total
31
30
34
5
5
18
123
Research
30.1%
34.1%
37.4%
21.7%
22.7% 19.8% 29.4%
19
21
17
4
4
6
71
Teaching
18.4%
23.9%
18.7%
17.4%
18.2%
6.6% 17.0%
1
0
0
0
1
4
6
Administration
1.0%
0%
0%
0%
4.5%
4.4% 1.4%
Current
33
24
28
5
7
42
139
Awareness
32.0%
27.3%
30.8%
21.7%
31.8% 46.2% 33.3%
Writing
proposals,
2
3
1
0
1
1
8
reports,
1.9%
3.4%
1.1%
0%
4.5%
1.1% 1.9%
articles, etc.
Consulting
1
0
1
1
0
3
6
/advising
1.0%
0%
1.1%
4.3%
0%
3.3% 1.4%
others
Internal or
1
1
3
0
0
0
5
external
1.0%
1.1%
3.3%
0%
0%
0%
1.2%
presentations
Continuing
14
9
4
7
4
12
50
education for
13.6%
10.2%
4.4%
30.4%
18.2% 13.2% 12.0%
self
1
0
3
1
0
5
10
Others
1.0%
0%
3.3%
4.3%
0%
5.5% 2.4%
103
88
91
23
22
91
418
Column Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Other publication readings by associate professors are more likely to be cited than
readings by other academic positions (χ2=29.020, p=.016). Thirty-two percent of the
readings by associate professors, 27% by assistant professors, 17% by “other” positions,
14% of professors, 14% by adjuncts, and 13% by instructors/lecturers have been or will be
cited. We did not find any other significant differences between academic position and
other publication reading patterns.
100
Older faculty read more other publications (F=4.073, p=.003) (Table 61). Faculty in
their fifties read, on average, twelve other publications per month (M=12.31), followed by
faculty over sixty years of age (M=12.08), their forties (M=11.43), thirties (M=6.75), and
faculty in their twenties (M=4.45). We did not find a significant difference between age and
time spent per reading.
Table 61. Number of Other Publication Readings for US Faculty by Age Range
Under 30 years
31-40 years
41-50 years
51-60 years
Over 60 years
Number of other
publication readings
4.45
6.75
11.43
12.31
12.08
Readings by faculty in their thirties are more likely to be cited than any other age
group (χ2=18.990, p=.089). Twenty-eight percent of the readings by faculty in their thirties
have been or will be cited, followed by 20% of the readings by faculty in their twenties,
20% of those in their forties, and 20% of the readings by faculty in their fifties. By contrast,
only 13% of the readings by faculty over sixty years of age have been or will be cited. We
did not discover any other associations between age and other publication reading
patterns.
Male faculty spends more time per other publication reading (F=5.695, p=.017).
Male faculty report spending an average of thirty-three minutes per reading (M=33.25) and
female faculty report spending about twenty-five minutes per reading (M=25.38). We did
not find a significant difference between gender and number of other publication readings.
101
We found significant differences between the respondent’s gender and how s/he
obtains the other publication reading (χ2=15.198, p=.016). Just over a quarter (26%) of
male respondents’ other publication readings are obtained through purchases, but only
18% of female respondents’ readings are purchased (Table 62). On the other hand, 18% of
female respondents’ readings are also obtained through means not listed, whereas only 6%
of male respondents’ readings are obtained in other ways.
Table 62. Association between Gender and Where US Faculty Obtain an Other
Publication Reading
I bought it myself
Website
Library or
Archives
Interlibrary loan
A colleague,
author, or other
person provided
it to me
A free advanced,
or purchased
copy from
publisher
Other
Column Total
Male
53
26.1%
94
46.3%
16
7.9%
3
1.5%
13
6.4%
Row
Female Total
38
91
17.8% 21.9%
87
181
40.8% 43.5%
17
33
8.0%
7.9%
3
6
1.4%
1.4%
18
8.5%
31
7.5%
11
12
23
5.4%
5.6%
5.5%
13
38
51
6.4%
17.8% 12.3%
203
213
416
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
We also found some differences between the respondents’ gender and purpose of
other publication reading (χ2=15.184, p=.056). Over one-third (35%) of the readings by
men are for research, but only one-quarter (24%) of the readings by women are read for
102
research (Table 63). Thirteen percent of the readings by men are also read for continuing
education, but only 11% by women are for continuing education. However, 22% of the
readings by women are for teaching, compared to 12% by men. Thirty-six percent of the
readings by women are also read for current awareness, compared to 31% by men.
Table 63. Association between Principal Purpose of Other Publication Reading and
Gender of US Faculty
Row
Male
Female
Total
70
52
122
Research
34.5%
24.4%
29.3%
25
47
72
Teaching
12.3%
22.1%
17.3%
5
1
6
Administration
2.5%
0.5%
1.4%
Current
62
76
138
Awareness
30.5%
35.7%
33.2%
Writing
proposals,
5
3
8
reports,
2.5%
1.4%
1.9%
articles, etc.
Consulting
2
4
5
/advising
1.0%
1.9%
1.4%
others
Internal or
2
3
5
external
1.0%
1.4%
1.2%
presentations
Continuing
26
23
49
education for
12.8%
10.8%
11.8%
self
6
4
10
Others
3.0%
1.9%
2.4%
203
213
416
Column Total
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
The readings by female faculty are considered more important to the principal
purpose than readings by male faculty (χ2=6.272, p=.180). Twenty-nine percent of female
faculty consider other publication reading to be “very important” or “absolutely essential”
103
compared to 24% of the readings by male faculty. In addition, 35% of female faculty’s
readings are considered “important,” compared to 33% of male faculty’s readings. All
differences in reading patterns by gender may be explained by the disproportionate
distribution of genders across subject disciplines.
We did not find any significant associations between gender and type of other
publication, format of reading, or whether the reading was cited.
Faculty who won an award within the last two years spend, on average, thirty-three
minutes per other publication reading (M=32.53), compared to faculty who did not win an
award (M=27.53) (F=1.990, p=.159).
Faculty who published more also read more other publications (F=4.841, p=.008).
Faculty who published between three and ten items read, on average eleven other
publications per month (M=11.35) and faculty who published more than ten items read
eight other publications per month (M=8.04), compared to faculty who published between
zero and two items who report reading only six other publications per month (M=6.38).
We did not find any significant differences between award-winning faculty and
number of other publications and publication record and time spent per reading.
104
Social Media Participation and Creation
105
The use of social media has increased in the last few years in both the academic and
non-academic world. In this study, we examined the influence of social media on the
reading of traditional materials. Social media or Web 2.0 technologies are collaborative,
innovated user-generated content. According to the JISC website (2010), social media or
Web 2.0 technologies are “innovative online tools designed to enhance communication and
collaboration.” Social media includes blogs, twitter, online videos, and social networks.
A 2010 study by the Research Information Network (RIN) found that social media
tools (blogs, wikis, file-sharing services) are being used as supplements to the traditional
forms of information (monographs, journal articles, etc.). Academics place value on the
traditional publications because they receive recognition and rewards for their work. In
the RIN study, only 13% of the respondents used social media tools frequently, and 39%
did not use them at all. The study found that academics are supportive of social media
because it allows them to freely share ideas and collaborate with a broader scholarly
community. While they found a few slight associations between social media use and
demographics, for the most part age, discipline, and position are not key factors. They
concluded that while social media will continue as a supplement to traditional publications,
academics’ lack of trust and quality will keep it from creating a radical change in scholarly
communications (RIN 2010). Our findings support the 2010 findings.
Participation and Creation of Social Media
We asked, “How often do you read, view, or access each of the following for work
related purposes (Teaching, research, etc.)?” and “How often do you create each of the
following for work related purposes (teaching, research, etc.)?” We specified ten social
106
media tools—blogging (e.g., WordPress, Blogster), microblogging (e.g., Twitter), RSS feeds,
social networking (e.g., LinkedIn), social tagging (e.g., Delicious), collaborative authoring
(e.g., Google docs, CiteULike), user comments in articles, image sharing (e.g., Flickr), audio
sharing (e.g., podcasts), and video sharing (e.g., YouTube). Their responses ranged from
daily, weekly, monthly, occasionally, or never.
Faculty members participate in social media more than they create it; however,
their use and creation is more often occasional rather than on a regular basis. However,
only 10% of respondents do not participate in any of the social media tools we listed (52 of
549). Social media may help spread some ideas and provoke thoughts but are not as
valuable as traditional scholarly material. One faculty member explains, “I read the blogs of
other scholars to get ideas to improve my teaching.”
Blogging, social networking, and video sharing are the most frequently used (Table
64). Thirty percent of US faculty report they participate in blogging and video sharing on a
daily or weekly basis; 25% participate in social networking on a daily or weekly basis.
Microblogging, RSS feeds, and social tagging are the least frequently used.
107
Table 64. Participation in Social Media by US Faculty
Blogging
Microblogging
RSS Feeds
Social
Networking
Social Tagging
Collaborative
Authoring
Comments in
articles
Image sharing
Audio sharing
Video sharing
Daily
89
15.3.%
43
7.5%
42
7.3%
83
14.3%
9
1.6%
26
4.5%
35
6.0%
10
1.7%
18
3.1%
36
6.2%
Weekly
83
14.3%
23
4.0%
27
4.7%
59
10.2%
9
1.6%
61
10.5%
76
13.0%
32
5.5%
29
5.1%
106
18.3%
Monthly
15
2.6%
15
2.6%
20
3.5%
43
7.4%
13
2.3%
57
9.8%
51
8.7%
39
6.7%
40
7.0%
68
11.7%
Occasionally
155
26.7%
55
9.6%
101
17.6%
143
24.7%
41
7.1%
162
28.0%
160
27.4%
132
22.8%
177
30.9%
197
34.0%
Never
239
41.1%
439
76.3%
384
66.9%
251
43.4%
502
87.5%
273
47.2%
261
44.8%
366
63.2%
309
53.9%
172
29.7%
Total
581
100.0%
575
100.0%
574
100.0%
579
100.0%
574
100.0%
579
100.0%
583
100.0%
579
100.0%
573
100.0%
579
100.0%
Fewer respondents create social media, and over one-third (35%) of respondents
did not create social media content for any of the tools we listed (190 of 540). Social
networking and collaborative authoring are the only social media tools for which at least
one third of the respondents create content at least occasionally (Table 65). Twenty-nine
percent create user comments in articles at least occasionally. Less than 10% create RSS
feeds or social tagging. One respondent, however, expresses his/her dislike of user
comments, “I especially cannot stand the online comments from readers that now appear at
the end of an article, where anyone can post their thoughts and responses! They tend to be
so vituperative that I simply leave the online publication disgusted, but thankful there’s no
such thing as a gun in their little online hands.”
108
Table 65. Creation of Social Media by US Faculty
Blogging
Microblogging
RSS Feeds
Social
Networking
Social Tagging
Collaborative
Authoring
Comments in
articles
Image sharing
Audio sharing
Video sharing
Daily
10
1.7%
21
3.7%
4
0.7%
22
3.8%
5
0.9%
10
1.7%
6
1.0%
4
0.7%
2
0.3%
2
0.3%
Weekly
22
3.8%
20
3.5%
7
1.2%
42
7.3%
8
1.4%
38
6.6%
25
4.3%
12
2.1%
4
0.7%
15
2.6%
Monthly
27
4.7%
7
1.2%
5
0.9%
31
5.4%
10
1.8%
54
9.4%
27
4.7%
22
3.8%
13
2.3%
19
3.3%
Participation in Social Media and Scholarly Reading
Occasionally
84
14.5%
40
7.0%
25
4.4%
119
20.7%
27
4.7%
128
22.2%
110
19.1%
67
11.6%
56
9.8%
84
14.6%
Never
436
75.3%
487
84.7%
529
92.8%
361
62.8%
520
91.2%
347
60.1%
407
70.8%
473
81.8%
498
86.9%
456
79.2%
Total
579
100.0%
575
100.0%
570
100.0%
575
100.0%
570
100.0%
577
100.0%
575
100.0%
578
100.0%
573
100.0%
576
100.0%
One reason we examined the use and creation of social media was to see how it
influenced the use of traditional scholarly material. Are academics using social media for
information instead of journal articles? Are academics using and creating social media as a
form of collaboration and to share ideas? Is social media replacing traditional material? Do
academics who participate and create social media read fewer articles, books, and other
publications? By comparing reading patterns with faculty members’ use and creation of
social media, we hope to address these questions.
We found that faculty members who are participating with social media are reading
more scholarly articles (p=.881) scholarly books (p=.190), and other publications
(p<.0001). Faculty who participate in zero to two social media tools on a daily to occasional
109
basis read, on average, twenty-two articles, six book/book chapters, and seven other
publications per month, those who participate in three to five social media tools read
twenty-one articles, seven book/book chapters, and eight other publications, while those
who participate in six or more tools read, on average, twenty-two articles, eight book/book
chapters, and fifteen other publications.
Faculty who received an award within the last two years also participated in slightly
more social media (F=4.889, p=.027). Award-winning faculty members participated in five
social media tools (M=4.810), while those who did not win an award in the last two years
participate on average in four social media tools (M=4.2446). Although we did not find a
significant correlation between publication totals and social media usage, we discovered
that faculty who participate in at least six social media tools publish slightly more items
(M=5.94) compared those who use between zero and two tools (M=5.54), and those who
use three to five tools (M=5.45) (F=.165, p=.848).
Participation in Social Media and Demographics
For our analysis we define participation and use of social media as using the tool
occasionally to daily. Table 66 shows the number of respondents and percentage in each
discipline who participate in a daily, weekly, monthly, or occasional basis with each social
media tool. Overall, academics in the social sciences participate in more social media than
scientists and other disciplines. We found a significant association between subject
discipline and all types of social media tools. Generally, social scientists and humanists
participate in a greater number and greater variety of social media tools.
110
Table 66. Percentage of US Faculty Who Participate in Social Media by Discipline
Engineering/
Medical
Social
Sciences
Technology/
Humanities
Sciences
Sciences
Math
36
13
38
145
93
Blogging
34.6%
38.2%
55.9%
68.4%
71.5%
8
4
14
74
26
Microblogging
7.8%
11.8%
20.9%
35.1%
20.5%
26
8
19
88
38
RSS Feeds
25.2%
23.5%
27.9%
41.9%
30.2%
Social
45
18
33
140
73
Networking
43.3%
52.9%
47.8%
66.0%
57.0%
0
3
7
40
16
Social Tagging
0%
9.1%
10.4%
19.0%
18.2%
Collaborative
54
18
40
114
65
Authoring
52.4%
54.5%
57.1%
54.0%
50.4%
Comments in
39
17
33
141
76
articles
37.5%
50.0%
47.1%
66.8%
58.5%
29
9
15
86
61
Image sharing
27.9%
26.5%
22.1%
40.4%
47.7%
27
20
24
108
67
Audio sharing
27.0%
58.8%
35.8%
51.4%
52.3
56
26
41
161
100
Video sharing
53.8%
76.5%
60.3%
76.3%
77.5%
Faculty members in their forties and fifties are more likely to participate in social
media than their younger counterparts or faculty over sixty years of age (F=3.564, p=.007).
However, faculty in their thirties participate more often in microblogging and social
tagging. Faculty over sixty years of age are the least likely to participate in most social
media tools, excepting RSS feeds and social networking, in which faculty under 30 are the
least likely to participate in RSS feeds and social networking. Table 67 shows the numbers
and percentages of respondents for each age category and social media tool. Social
networking and video blogging are the most popular social media tools across all age
groups.
111
Table 67. Percentage of US Faculty Who Participate in Social Media by Age
Under 30
31–40
41-50
51-60
Over 60
Years
Years
years
Years
Years
19
88
89
91
49
Blogging
50.0%
60.3%
65.0%
62.8%
49.5%
9
44
37
35
10
Microblogging
23.7%
30.3%
27.0%
24.5%
10.4%
9
46
48
58
25
RSS Feeds
23.7%
31.9%
35.3%
40.3%
26.0%
Social
18
80
82
91
49
Networking
47.4%
54.8%
60.3%
63.6%
50.0%
6
23
17
19
7
Social Tagging
15.8%
15.8%
12.6%
13.2%
7.4%
Collaborative
21
82
78
76
39
Authoring
55.3%
55.8%
57.8%
52.4%
40.2%
Comments in
21
67
78
88
57
articles
55.3%
45.6%
58.5%
61.1%
57.6%
14
47
56
59
30
Image sharing
36.8%
32.6%
41.2%
40.4%
30.9%
13
66
64
77
36
Audio sharing
34.2%
45.5%
46.7%
53.8%
38.3%
27
95
105
109
57
Video sharing
71.1%
65.5%
77.2%
75.7%
58.2%
Assistant professors and instructors/lecturers are more likely to participate in
social media tools than other faculty positions (F=1.816, p=.108). Except for audio sharing,
in which associate professors participate the most, assistant professors and
instructors/lecturers participate the most in every social media tool. We found differences
in academic status and blogging (χ2=9.056, p=.107), microblogging (χ2=13.825, p=.017),
social tagging (χ2=9.594, p=.088), image sharing (χ2=10.237, p=.069), audio sharing
(χ2=8.607, p=.126), and video sharing (χ2=13.825, p=.017). Blogging and video sharing are
the most popular social media tools across status groups. Table 68 shows the respondent
number and percentages for each academic status and social media tool. We did not find
112
any significant differences between academic status and participation in RSS feeds, social
networking, collaborative authoring, or user comments in articles.
Table 68. Percentage of US Faculty Who Participate in Social Media by Academic
Status
Associate
Assistant Instructors
Professors
Adjuncts Others
Professors Professors / Lecturers
78
78
82
21
16
65
Blogging
54.9%
64.5%
66.7%
58.3%
57.1%
50.8%
25
22
34
15
9
29
Microblogging
18.0%
18.3%
27.6%
42.9%
32.1%
22.8%
11
17
19
8
5
12
Social Tagging
7.9%
14.0%
15.4%
23.5%
18.5%
9.4%
46
40
57
16
12
40
Image sharing
32.6%
33.1%
46.7%
44.4%
44.4%
31.3%
54
60
65
20
13
52
Audio sharing
39.7%
49.6%
53.3%
57.1%
46.4%
40.6%
94
89
98
26
20
29
Video sharing
66.2%
74.8%
79.7%
72.2%
71.4%
22.8%
In each social media tool listed in our survey, female faculty participate more than
male faculty (Table 69).
113
Table 69. Percentage of US Faculty Who Participate in Social Media by Gender
Blogging
Microblogging
RSS Feeds
Social
Networking
Social Tagging
Collaborative
Authoring
Comments in
articles
Image sharing
Audio sharing
Video sharing
Male
163
56.8%
64
22.6%
86
30.2%
152
53.1%
29
10.2%
144
50.5%
151
52.2%
86
30.2%
105
37.5%
178
62.2%
Female
177
61.9%
71
25.0%
103
36.7%
172
60.6%
43
15.2%
161
56.3%
165
57.7%
125
43.9%
158
55.4%
223
78.5%
Creation of Social Media and Scholarly Reading
We found that faculty members who created more social media content read more
scholarly articles (p=.756), books/book chapters (p=.447), and “other” publications
(p<.0001). Those who created between zero and two pieces of social media content read,
on average, twenty-two articles, seven books, and eight “other” publications, those who
create content for three to five tools read twenty-one articles, seven books/book chapters,
and twelve other publications, while faculty create more than five pieces of social media
content read twenty-three articles, eight books, and eighteen “other” publications. Since
many other publications are obtained from a website or other online source, this may
114
explain why there is an association between social media and other publications.
Academics who are already engaged with online resources tend to interact with a variety of
methods to transmit and receive information.
Faculty who received an award in the last two years also create slightly more social
media content (M=2.4128) than those who did not receive an award (M=1.9358) (F=4.711,
p=.030). As with participation in social media, faculty who create content for at least six
social media tools publish more scholarly works (F=.419, p=.658). Faculty members who
create content for at least six tools publish seven scholarly works (M=6.55), followed by
those who create content for between three and five tools (M=5.83), and those who create
content between zero and two tools (M=5.43).
Creation of Social Media and Demographics
For our analysis we defined the creation of social media as daily to occasionally. In
addition to participating in social media more than other disciplines, social scientists also
tend to create social media content more than academics in the other disciplines. We found
a significant association between the respondent’s discipline and all types of social media
tools. Table 70 shows the number of respondents and percentage in each discipline who
create content in a daily, weekly, monthly, or occasional basis with each social media tool.
As with participate in social media, social scientists and humanists create more social
media content for a greater variety of tools.
115
Table 70. Percentage of US Faculty Who Create in Social Media Content by Discipline
Engineering/
Medical
Social
Sciences
Technology/
Humanities
Sciences
Sciences
Math
10
5
12
59
47
Blogging
9.8%
14.7%
17.4%
27.8%
36.7%
5
4
8
41
22
Microblogging
5.0%
11.8%
11.6%
19.6%
17.2%
2
0
2
24
10
RSS Feeds
2.0%
0%
2.9%
11.5%
7.9%
Social
23
9
17
98
54
Networking
22.5%
26.5%
24.6%
46.7%
42.5%
2
3
3
27
12
Social Tagging
2.0%
8.8%
4.4%
12.9%
9.6%
Collaborative
32
10
29
93
53
Authoring
31.7%
30.3%
42.6%
43.9%
41.1%
Comments in
20
7
22
73
41
articles
19.8%
21.2%
31.9%
34.8%
32.0%
15
6
6
41
29
Image sharing
14.9%
17.6%
8.7%
19.4%
22.5%
6
6
6
33
22
Audio sharing
6.1%
17.6%
8.7%
15.8%
17.2%
18
4
10
46
32
Video sharing
17.8%
11.8%
14.5%
21.9%
24.8%
Unlike participation in social media, we found that instructors/lecturers and
adjuncts create more social media content than other positions (F=3.176, p=.008). This
discovery held true for all social media tools listed in our survey. Table 71 shows the
number and percentages for each academic position and social media tool. We did not find
any differences between collaborative authoring and the creation of social media content.
116
Table 71. Percentage of US Faculty Who Create in Social Media Content by Academic
Status
Associate
Assistant Instructors
Professors
Adjuncts Others
Professors Professors / Lecturers
32
33
29
14
10
25
Blogging
22.5%
27.5%
23.8%
40.0%
35.7%
19.4%
16
15
23
11
9
13
Microblogging
11.4%
12.6%
19.0%
30.6%
33.3%
10.1%
Social
44
44
50
17
15
43
Networking
31.4%
36.7%
41.3%
47.2%
55.6%
33.6%
8
12
15
3
5
7
Social Tagging
5.8%
10.1%
12.3%
8.3%
18.5%
5.6%
Comments in
41
41
32
14
11
29
articles
29.3%
26.7%
26.7%
38.9%
40.7%
22.5%
24
26
26
11
8
17
Image sharing
17.1%
21.5%
12.5%
30.6%
28.6%
13.2%
32
22
22
9
11
23
Video sharing
23.2%
18.3%
18.0%
25.0%
39.3%
18.0%
We found some associations between age and the creation microblogging (χ2=8.456,
p=.076), collaborative authoring (χ2=7.698, p=.103), and user comments in articles
(χ2=5.168, p=.270). Twenty percent of respondents in their thirties create microblogging
content at least occasionally, while only 18% of those in their twenties and forties, 13% in
their fifties, and only 7% over sixty years of age microblog. Nearly half (48%) of
respondents in their forties create collaborative authoring content, followed by 43% in
their thirties, 42% in their twenties, 39% in their fifties, and just 29% over sixty. Just over
a third (35%) of respondents in their fifties create user comments in articles, followed by
29% of those in their forties, 26% of those in their thirties and over sixty years of age, and
just 21% in their twenties.
As with participation in social media, female faculty create more content for social
media tools more than their male counterparts (Table 72). We did not find any significant
117
associations between gender and creation of social media content for microblogging, social
networking, or video sharing.
Table 72. Percentage of US Faculty Who Participate in Social Media by Gender
Blogging
RSS Feeds
Social Tagging
Collaborative
Authoring
Comments in
articles
Image sharing
Audio sharing
Male
66
23.1%
18
6.4%
21
7.4%
107
37.7%
90
31.5%
46
16.1%
34
12.1%
118
Female
75
26.4%
23
8.3%
29
10.4%
122
43.0%
75
26.8%
59
20.8%
40
14.2%
Open Ended Questions
119
Open-Ended Questions
At the end of the survey, we asked, “What role do scholarly articles play in your
research, teaching, or other scholarly activities?” and “Final Comments.” We hoped the openended questions would provide the forum for the respondents to address any issues or
topics that were not addressed in the survey. In addition, the open-ended comments
provide another dimension to understand the value of scholarly reading and library
resources. The majority of the comments praised the role of scholarly articles in their work
activities, and especially noted the important of the library’s electronic collections.
The following are the responses we received for “What role do scholarly articles play
in your research, teaching, or other scholarly activities?” We received 495 comments to the
first question.
The comments can be categorized into seven groups: research, teaching, current
awareness, knowledge or inspiring ideas, writing, general, or multiple roles. Nearly all of
the comments stressed the importance of scholarly articles to their research and teaching.
Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Citation of studies in my papers, literature search.
My research is based to a great extent on scholarly articles. I access them daily
through the library electronic portal.
They are how I keep up with other research that is related to my own.
They are the lifeline of my research
Most important for research.
They play a role in research, not in teaching.
Essential for my research
They are critical when I am able to research.
Such articles are absolutely necessary. I could not do research without them.
I rely on scholarly articles to a greater extent than on books. Scholarly articles lie at
the heart of my research process.
120
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They are highly significant to my research. Law academics rely substantially on each
other's work in building knowledge.
Very important role and one that is needed to further my research agenda.
They mean a ton. Essential to cite other work to clarify one's own research
contribution, as well as to help incorporate existing thought/methods to improve one's
work.
Hugely important - the end-product of my research and the lifeblood of continuing to
research.
Exceptionally important; could not do research without them.
They are integral to teaching graduate-level courses and providing a foundation for
ongoing research
My research is built on the work of others.
Essential in my research. Not important in my teaching.
A little, as it relates to my research. I browse many science journal articles, but never
read front to back.
Updating my research knowledge. However, in many instances, I am aware of these
articles due to my searches on SSRN.
vital to my ongoing research and publication activities
Crucial element of research
They come second after primary materials, which are usually published in book form.
We review relevant articles regularly as a part of resident training. I use articles to
research my own publication (articles and book chapters)
They play a central role. I could not do my research work without them.
The main medium of communication of research, the only one that counts
professionally.
useful for research. sometimes useful as texts for teaching depending on coursework.
They provide critical information needed for idea development and research. They
provide a portion of the information needed for advanced (graduate level) courses.
They are the most important way for me to follow theory and research in my
discipline. They are central to my work.
They are central to my research.
Scholarly articles are central to my research.
They are a fundamental source of factual information and insights to the state of the
art in research areas. I use articles as the basis of student reports in Honors classes.
I search for articles that relate specifically to subjects that I am researching. These
articles come from a very wide variety of sources and relate to a very wide variety if
interests mostly to do with the histories of architectural and design theory, human
rights, humanitarian assistance, military history, construction...
121
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They provide the inspiration for identifying new areas of research. They provide the
foundation upon which to base my research
They are integral to research topics and familiarize myself with the history of research
on those topics.
Scholarly articles are extremely important to my research and very important to my
teaching. My development of my field is best reflected in article-format as it is an
establishing field
Vital for research.
Use them for literature reviews and to inform work.
They are fundamental; it is the lifeblood of my research.
Essential. I am in a rapidly changing field that has had several paradigm shifts since I
started research.
I can't really imagine research without them
Articles play a critically important role in humanities research.
They are the core of my research, providing most of the critical and theoretical context
and method.
I use scholarly articles to develop and support research proposals and reports/journal
articles. Critical for this work.
Scholarly articles are the most visible product of my past and ongoing research, and
the scholarly articles of others plays a role in guiding my future research. A broad
knowledge of scholarly articles is also necessary for the training and assistance I
provide to graduate students: I am able to guide them to the most useful and
comprehensible references.
I do scientific writing for my unit. I rely on scholarly articles for subject matter
research, as well as for further research of the work of a particular scientist.
They allow me to broaden my research focus and learn more about the field.
citations for research articles, inform teaching strategies and content, designing
workshops, informs consulting
Quite a bit especially on new projects. It helps to figure out how to accomplish needed
research
Important for research to ensure that my research is keeping up with current science.
As information from which to conduct research, complete manuscripts and create
research proposals.
Allow me to research future projects and cite past studies for future papers and
presentations
They provide background, research ideas, and define research needs.
These are a source of new methods and techniques for our group's research projects.
122
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I read every day for my research. Poor access was the main reason I left previous
institution. I think academic positions in institutions with poor access are an exercise
in futility.
Aid in research for topics I need more background knowledge in relation to my work
projects.
critical for my research and for the professional performance of my job as Director
Background on the scientific research of scientists that I work with.
We are in a research facility and I spend a lot of time helping others and doing IRB
work.
Background information for research & presentation of information to public to solve
problems.
Critical for review of the literature
primary resources
Basis for research funding
Research
Most important for research, but I use them regularly for graduate seminars.
I frequently use scholarly articles to supplement textbook material.
These articles provide context for me research, keep me updated on research taking
place at peer institutions, and inspire thought and reflection that guides the direction
of my research and teaching.
A huge role. Couldn't do research without it. Am frustrated that [my university] doesn't
have Athens or Shibboleth login system to access journals found during online
searchers. Finding a specific article via the [university] library system is cumbersome
and a waste of time (too many clicks through too many windows, etc.). Need to access
research articles more readily. Frustrated grad students and other colleagues end up
using Google Scholar as a result. Please fix this problem.
Crucial to research, helpful in teaching
Major role. Use them for directing my group's research and for comparing to what
people have done previously.
Scholarly articles are extremely important in my research
the ones that I published are a metric that my research is judged by. The articles I
read help to shape my current and future research.
Teaching
•
I keep up with pedagogy in my field. I teach statistics so I use journal articles to
demonstrate statistical reasoning to my students. I read the blogs of other scholars to
123
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
get ideas to improve my teaching. I am also a part-time PhD student and I use
scholarly articles often.
Use in teaching for current thought and examples.
in teaching
crucial to research critical to graduate teaching good supplement to undergraduate
teaching
Highly important. Research probably depends more on scholarly books, but articles
are also crucial. Crucial in teaching upper-level classes; increasingly, my students find
journal articles easier to access than full books, so I've seen an increase in the number
of articles cited in student research papers.
They are enormously important in providing me and my students to follow current
debates in curtailed form. While books give you the more fully developed argument,
scholarly articles enable you to enjoy authors' preliminary forays into new, unfolding
debates.
I use them to stay relevant and factual when teaching.
I have undergraduate students read and report on one to make sure that they are
bringing research into the classroom.
Essential for teaching (demonstrating efficacy of health intervention programs,
reporting on surveillance data, ...)
skim them to be current with teaching content and curricular programming
Scholarly articles play an important role in my teaching. I use the information to keep
abreast of research being conducted in my field.
Use for teaching purposes only so students are aware of how to reference them in their
research for papers. However, I'm in a professional school and am a Prof. of Practice
so my work is focused more on what is happening professionally in the business rather
than the scholarly side of things.
Provide students with the latest information, increase critical thinking and discussion
in class.
I enjoy reading scholarly articles to augment my teaching.
Scholarly articles inspire me to enrich my teaching.
They help give new ideas and break me out of my same old teaching style rut.
Provide background material and examples for teaching purposes.
They inform my teaching and some of my writing.
Scholarly articles are very important in my teaching.
I assign a few scholarly articles and essays into my courses regularly. The research I do
is personally, not professionally, driven, so I've not counted any of that in this survey.
Currently, I'm teaching a graduate course that is completely based on published
scholarly work in competitive peer-reviewed conference or journals. I also teach
undergraduate students how to find, read, and think about peer-reviewed scholarly
124
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
work for their projects. We read articles to discuss at weekly lab meetings. My lab
keeps each other current on new research in the area.
Use scholarly articles for ideas for teaching and as the basis for my own scholarly
work.
extremely important- could not do research or teaching without them. I teach
graduate seminars on theory and also lead a research lab group of students from all
levels.
They are absolutely critical to my teaching (graduate and undergraduate) and to my
research/writing.
Typically very little, as I teach studio-based classes. There is some referencing of
articles, but not a lot.
Insist that the students include such secondary information in their papers.
Substantive role in refining details for teaching. Required for performing clinical
research.
The play a major role in each. In the classroom, I tend to rely solely on scholarly
articles rather than a text book and in research, they provide me with the knowledge
that is the foundation upon which I build my theory.
Giving me new approaches to teaching the same subject matter
Scholarly writing that deals with the subjects I teach are vital, but the "classic" articles
tend to be of greater importance in the introductory and historical topics in my course
load. Up-to-date books and articles having to do with contemporary techniques of
composition are important to me as a composer, and I turn to them often for ideas on
how to solve technical problems in the music I write.
very important in keeping teaching content updated
Current awareness
•
•
•
•
•
•
They help me stay updated on the recent developments in my field and also help me
learn new ideas and novel research topics. They also help me plan my research work
based on the concurrent progress made by my colleagues.
Articles keep me abreast of the latest research in my area of assessment and
evaluation related to teacher education.
Keep me abreast of state of knowledge
They are most important vehicle for disseminating research results and keeping up
with the field.
Keep me up to date and allow me to help doctoral students in their research
absolutely critical for all my scholarly activities. Articles are also the way I stay current
in my field and learn about other fields related to mine.
125
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Keep abreast of new developments in my field; expand my professional knowledge;
improve my administrative skills and understanding
They let me know what is going on in other places
Very important as they provide me with the cutting-edge in my field.
Important role, vital to seeing new developments in the several fields I span in my
research.
Very important for keeping up with the latest scholarship!!!
Major source of information. One way to get updated on the current work.
Abreast of scientific advances in research area
keep up to date info on particular topics data for lectures and articles, books
They are critical towards keeping up with current research in my field.
They play a significant role in exposing me to the best intellectual dialogue in other
institutions, and especially in think tanks and policy organizations.
My area of expertise is psychiatric mental health nursing scholarly journals are
imperative to keep me informed of advances in the field and best practices.
Keeping up on the latest information about fund raising and education.
They're very important, especially in neuroscience. The field changes quickly so it's
essential to have access to the newest changes and the background studies that are
often referenced. Thus I read a lot of articles.
Keep me up with current developments, provide technical tools.
Very important for keeping up with research trends
Very important. I couldn't do my work and keep renewing and improving without the
work of other scholars.
They inform me of the state of the art of my profession.
They are critical to all activities, particularly in terms of recent/current issues in the
field.
They are an essential way of both keeping up with the field and understanding its
historical conversations.
They are extremely important to keeping up with advancements in my areas of study.
I depend upon them greatly.
Help me to stay up-to-date in the field
Little, keeping up to date with the activities of other chemists in New Zealand
They play a major role. It is impossible to attend all of the relevant conferences in the
US and international venues. These articles, especially those ahead-of-print, are very
important.
Critical to understanding current developments and previous work.
As an administrator, it is critical that I read Inside Higher Education and the Chronicle
of Higher Education daily
Important for keeping up with current research and fostering new ideas
126
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Articles are one of the main ways to keep current in Crystallography and to keep
current on all the different types of chemistry projects done by the faculty that must be
supported by my service facility.
Informs me of current literature on topics, which empowers me to enhance my own
work as well as share findings with others.
keeping up on current information to do best practices
Surveys of current state of the art
Basis of practice
To provide credible advice I must keep on cutting edge science as well as new discovery
of pathogens/evolutionary mechanisms/etc.
Keep me up to date on current technology.
Very important for keeping abreast of research findings, theory, and for figuring out
which journal may be the best outlet for my research findings.
I routinely skim the contents of the ASECS, GSA, and MLA journals to see what the field
is up to; I also look for articles--both recent and not--on the topics I'm researching.
main source to keep current in the profession
Articles are the best way to get the latest information. I prefer to public articles
because they are easier for other scholars to locate than information in my books. I
am known in the field for my scholarly articles more than for my books.
They plan an important role, keeping me abreast of advances in my field.
Knowledge or inspiring ideas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
techniques, methods, ideas,
They help to shape and focus my work.
Keep me updated in my field. Develop new questions. Discussion with the community.
Essential for new ideas
I deal with a wide range of topics, and rely on a broad base of scholarly information
for inputs
As a source, they supplement the more reasoned knowledge presented in books; as a
vehicle, they permit dissemination of small and discrete portions of larger projects that
end up as books.
huge. I am constantly searching for new work; cutting edge work happens first in
refereed journals
I need them for keeping abreast of the field and to generate new ideas/approaches
Broaden my thought base
A lot. Constantly updating and looking for new information and better ways to help
students learn.
127
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They guide new thinking in all areas of my activity
New Ideas, argumentation, phenomenological descriptions, etc.
Add to my knowledge base; seed discussions; let me know what is going on in the field
They frame my work and help keep focus
I read and cite scholarly articles in my work to report on work that is related to my
work, that either supports my thinking or makes me question assumptions.
occasional inspiration, confirmation of personal theories
Improve knowledge, help be achieve better and faster results
inspire me and they are giving me the knowledge for doing my research
Know about best practices and to expand my knowledge
giving new idea and solving some difficulty of experiment
Very Important to find useful ideas and information on the state of the art
I regularly consult scholarly articles to enhance knowledge of cultural artifacts in a
museum collection.
A most important one. They help formulate research ideas and shape their
implementation.
I glean ideas form scholarly articles to use in my classroom.
I review technical specifications for University construction projects, and help our
hired consultants solve technical problems with campus buildings. I use various
articles, books, trade standards and journals to help us resolve problems and get better
results for our capital construction projects
They add to my general knowledge and professional growth, but are not directly
required in my work.
They help me learn specific topics, and contribute to the successful completion of many
of my work items.
new ideas
Provide information for research projects.
That information keep me posted about the sources and works are now in the field
It adds to my knowledge of the field
Helps me keep up. Inspires new ideas.
Scholarly articles play a large role in generating new ideas, comparing our work to
that of others, and marking progress in our research.
Writing
•
•
Learning new procedures for writing code
material for research writing grants
128
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Very important for writing papers. Less important for understanding the state of the
art in an area.
Absolutely necessary to writing proposals, developing methods, testing hypotheses,
and writing reports and papers.
They are important in my research when writing chapters on lithic analysis, which is
part of my job.
A large role. I like to cite primary literature in my educational materials.
Citable resources for papers I am publishing
Peer-reviewed articles and writings inform all of my work.
I regularly read and cite them, and many of my papers build heavily on the work in
scholarly articles.
Very important in preparation of written work, whether for popular or scholarly
venue, or brief article or scholarly book. Also use scholarly articles to prepare for
lectures, teaching seminar classes, and also as assigned materials for courses.
Vast role. Can't publish without them.
Publish or perish.
General
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They provide a guideline
immense role
Essential.
a prominent role
high
Extremely important; vital
crucial
They are extremely important for reviewing methodology, checking sources, and
providing new outlooks and vistas for my work.
They play a substantial role, but other sources, e.g., exhibition catalogues do as well
Critical
They are very important; I can't imagine doing my work without access to them.
Many ways.
Massive
I scan journals constantly, both those I buy myself, and e-journals from the library at
[my university]. I spend 10-20 hours per month doing this, I would estimate.
enormous
It is the basis for practically everything I do.
Central to all
129
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I don't even know how to answer this. It strikes me about the same as asking a sailor
what role the water plays in her trade.
essential avenue for me to get my work out and to engage with other's work
They are vital to improving my research, and my writing them is vital to my life.
Essential--esp. with enhanced on-line availability.
Without scholarly articles I cannot do my work.
Central. Scholarly articles contain most of the technical information informs my
research and teaching.
Foundational role for all activities.
Is this a trick question? Essential.
Large role
Critical--working with collaborators on and off campus.
Large role
Important
I use them for references and citations.
Learning and disseminating
none
extremely important
vital
Important source of information.
significant. The library databases and instant delivery to computer are stunning@!
Primary role
Central to research and to consulting work Peripheral to teaching
major
Central, they are the main means of communication and serve as the currency of
research for graduate students.
They're vital in helping students become aware of the standard of thinking in their
field.
A huge role.
Essential role.
essential
A primary role
very little to none
as essential sources of data and facts
Absolutely essential.
Important to both.
A key role.
invaluable
130
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They let me disseminate my work as well as keep up with the work of my peers
They are essential.
Primary, significant role
They are paramount.
Absolutely essential. Journals are the first place I turn to for information. The more
access [my university] can provide to faculty, the greater their output will be! I hope
you will make electronic access a priority.
They are important for my presentations, and also for higher level administrative
decisions.
Minimal
Very important role.
They are my primary source of information.
Articles can be tightly focused and useful, but in my field books are often more
influential.
They are key sources
Essential.
An important role.
major
Important core.
Huge-- they are the latest stuff
they are central. Most especially peer reviewed conference proceedings. I don't think
people actually read journal articles as much as conference procs. they are too long
and too out of date by the time they get published. They are just citation fodder
Critical to my practice of veterinary medicine and my publishing
Very important!
They are an important source of information.
A crucial role.
A very important role. I read and refer to them constantly.
Important
Journal articles play NO ROLE but conference proceedings/papers are quite important
A very great role.
They are essential; they are often primary documents.
They are important and essential
Gold standard
Critical role. Could not do without them.
I read (skim) at least two law review, accounting or regulatory articles each week
critical to all aspects of my research as well as public education and outreach
opportunities.
131
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A considerable role
They are absolutely essential. One my tie one's work to the state of scholarship.
very important
It lays the foundation for all I do
They are a resource I use daily to support all of my work.
hugely important
absolutely nec.
Scholarly articles are the beginning, ending and middle of my mathematical research.
My collaborative work with people outside of mathematics is mostly data analysis, and
so scholarly articles are less important to my work there.
Essential
Vital role. I could not publish without access to these.
Very important
Use them on a daily basis
Primary source of information.
Tremendously important; used daily
Essential - primary method of communicating research in this field.
Essential
Vital--they are everything I do
vital
You are lost without them.
Very important
A significant amount
Big.
Major role
Huge role - very important
essential role
important though not extremely important. all buttressed by journalistic media.
important
I cite scholarly articles to use facts that are stated and proved in them.
They are essential.
Scholarly articles are large part of the foundation for the work I do. Without them I
would I would be working in a vacuum.
Extremely important (note though, that the main academic law journals in the US are
not peer-reviewed).
They are used for technical assistance, as well as gathering knowledge for experiment
planning.
High
132
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Absolutely essential. If I didn't have access to electronic journals I would be doomed.
They form the basis of nearly all of my presentations, publishing and learning. The rest
is based on my own original research, but of course, even that is informed by existing
literature.
Significant
core component of my job
They are irreplaceable!
they are important
Vital - required
A fundamental role. Can't do my job without them.
Essential.
They are essential to my work.
Very large
Essential to my work.
Essential to both.
Very important role.
Essential.
professional career development
Very Important Role.
crucial
Extremely important that I be able to access journal articles electronically and books
in print.
I read, study, and utilize other results.
The do not play a primary role, since my role is primarily administrative. However, I
use them extensively to develop, refine and implement policy.
largely important, at irregular intervals
Critical role
they are very important as my research and writing is grounded in the literature
none
very little
none
None
Dissemination of improved methods for solving the problems in my work
Very little to none.
Guide definition of criteria for evaluation
They have been relevant in the past as I work to learn more in-depth information
about a topic. Recently, I have net had the need to use very much. [My university] have
been in "survivor mode" due to reorganization.
133
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
critical
absolutely necessary
an integral role
Provide the background for public workshops and consumer publications that I write
as an Extension educator.
A very small one, as there are few scholarly articles in my discipline.
Useful when needed
Very important role
Integral to my work
They are very useful, especially when available digitally on JSTOR or other easy and
free sources.
updating of knowledge of field.
background research
Vital
Essential
Major role. Very useful when access to top-notch journals is free.
I read them. I really don't understand this question.
They are extremely important - more than books (especially when teaching) - since
books can become outdated very soon
Major
A significant role
vital role
They are very important
very important
They're fundamental - they are the unit of communication.
Invaluable and necessary
good
A heavy role, although I wish I had more time for reading them.
a major part
They are essential.
Central to all.
A large role
Absolutely essential. My only peer-reviewed publications to date are journal
publications.
they are essential
It's the life's blood of everything that I do as a professor.
Fundamental
very important
134
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
they're essential
Extremely important
Very important. Can't imagine if without them.
Scholarly articles are my most valuable sources.
Central.
Of key importance
Essential. nuf said
main source
Paramount
essential, cannot work without them
They are necessary
significant
They are very important.
I use them all the time.
I read parts or in whole many professional journals to be on top of my field.
they are extremely important for aiding in detailed analysis
I cite a LOT of articles...
absolutely essential
For my generation, the scholarly article is the standard quantum of information.
Blogging isn't reviewed, books take too long to produce and are too expensive, but the
river of articles is the source of growing learning.
central roles, And you keep asking the same questions in different forms.
Multiple roles
•
•
•
•
•
They are vital to my research and teaching.
They remain central to what I produce and what I consume. However, I find myself
looking at blogs more. And, like many senior faculty, the opportunity to review the
work of others submitted for publication to journals where I serve as an editor turn
out to be useful ways of learning.
I write textbooks, conduct research and publish journal articles, and teach. All three
rely heavily on scholarly articles.
They are obviously essential in research - both reading others' work and publishing
our own. I use scholarly articles occasionally in my teaching, more so in graduate
courses than undergraduate.
Scholarly articles are central (i.e., absolutely vital) to my research, and also play an
important role in teaching by providing case studies with cutting-edge content.
135
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
literature reviews, read for research workshops, keeping current, referee reports
Articles are essential to my research, and important to my teaching.
Vital to research, teaching, and writing.
they are critical to my success as a researcher and instructor.
I edit them, use them to support author queries or editorial decisions, use them as
references or as grounding in what I write for practitioners. Also read articles
recommended by colleagues in order to discuss.
Scholarly work is essential to understanding the latest research topics in mathematics
and technology education.
essential to both research and teaching
In research, scholarly articles serve as a historical record for the advancement of the
field. In teaching, scholarly articles are used to verify correctness of information used
in lectures.
essential for keeping current and for informing research
Very big - key to informing me about newest research, theoretical developments
Very important. Research and pubs keep me actively engaged in academic and
research community; keep me empowered and updated in teaching. play a role model
to junior faculty on commitment to scholarship.
for my own research purposes; for reviewing; for teaching
Central role. Supporting research, situating arguments, connecting interdisciplinary
studies, writing literature reviews, etc.
Critical role in research and teaching, especially for developing and refining ideas.
I frequently use them to substantiate my research. They are an essential part of my
knowledge base and keeping up to date in my field.
Creating workshops, conference presentations, grant proposals
I primarily use scholarly articles for my research, but this year, have consulted several
for teaching purposes.
Well-written scholarly articles provide me with background information (e.g., for a lit
review), current practices and research (e.g., to stay abreast of developments in my
field), and ideas for my own work and improvement.
large role - necessary for research and to keep contemporary
inform teaching read for general knowledge informs research
I read them to inspire new creative work, I cite them to contextualize that creative
work in an intellectual community, and I will increasingly write them to increase the
visibility of the work of my field.
I'm writing a book on how journalists conduct interviews. My co-author and I have
read hundreds of articles in scholarly journals, books and other publications over the
last year on that and related topics. I also frequently use scholarly research to shape
and inform the courses in news writing and ethics that I teach.
136
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scholarly articles are ESSENTIAL to everything I do: teaching, research,
administration and policy.
They supplement teaching, and serve as support for research.
Foundation of information, generating ideas, publishing, teaching new and updating
existing courses
Very important, and I am an active reviewer as well as writer
I use them regularly to bring new ideas into the classroom and to support my own
writing and research.
I'm a poet and a teacher. I use a bit of scholarship to teach my classes, though at the
freshman level I don’t need much new stuff. As a poet, i read novels, books of poems,
and poetry journals. I also do a bit of research on Latina American lit and Biblical
subjects to keep up with the field with the expectation that i will teach those subjects
again someday.
They are essential to both research and teaching.
Crucial to maintaining understanding of debates in field; excellent source for short
readings for undergraduate courses. Fundamental to teaching graduate students.
They are absolutely indispensable for my research. They are useful for teaching.
Scholarly articles play a critical role in teaching, research and writing for publication.
Key for management of cases, development if new research investigations and to
ensure teaching at highest level
Fundamental for both, teaching and research
they are the absolute timeline of developing scientific advances. They are critical to
inform teaching too.
Vital for research, important for teaching
Very important role in both teaching and research
I rely on them to keep abreast of developments in my field and to provide material for
teaching.
Provide a reliable, tested source of information that can be passed to an audience
(students/conference attendees) with confidence; provoke critical thinking; inform
personal research in visual cognition and social impact design
Scholarly articles play essential role for my research and teaching.
Very important and indispensable. My teaching and research would be impossible
without them.
I read scholarly articles to keep up with trends in the field, I cite scholarly articles in
my research, and I use scholarly articles to improve teaching methods.
Scholarly articles are essential to my staying informed about the latest important
issues and trends in my field. I use them to help me write articles and I incorporate
them into my teaching.
Update existing knowledge - References for teaching/supervision
137
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Critical for research, occasionally used for teaching
They are very important for my research. They are necessary for all of my research and
writing projects for refereed journals. They are also essential for the research that
goes into my professional conference presentations. As for teaching, most of my
courses involve some minimal use of scholarly articles for students to read.
they assist me in research and inspiration for creative activity
Essential. I cannot do my research or my teaching without constant access to the
latest scholarly articles.
Scholarly articles play a significant role in all three areas. They are a necessity.
They are EXTREMELY important. They are usually more timely than books and are
easier to access (with many journals being available online through my institution's
library). I am far more likely to cite a journal article in my research than I am a book
or book chapter. I feel to be up-to-date, at the very least I have to scan the
contents/abstracts of the top journals in my field. I always assign journal articles in
graduate courses and sometimes in undergraduate courses.
The majority of time spent in preparation for teaching, research and conference
materials relies on access to multiple databases supporting a variety and depth of
scholarly articles in the health sciences and education.
Central to both teaching and research
I assign articles for classes to supplement. They figure greatly into my own research.
Articles supplement our scholarly output with books. We use articles to get feedback
from the scholarly community as we move forward with larger projects.
I use the articles to educate myself and as teaching references. In addition I use the
articles for a book I am writing.
Crucial. Most of the information I use in m teaching, research and writing comes from
articles.
They are essential to all of my activities in research, teaching and other scholarship.
Articles are fundamentally important for my own research and writing. Peer-reviewed
scholarly articles and book reviews are required reading for all of my courses, both
undergrad and graduate.
Very important role in both my research and teaching. My research area is climate
change and agriculture, so that is a rapidly evolving field and keeping up with the
literature is critical. I also like to keep the course I teach very modern and relevant.
It would be impossible to teach or research without them
They play a key role. Debates in them guide my research, reading, and enter my
teaching.
Vital for keeping up with broader field, and necessary for research
They're irreplaceable in both research and teaching. They form the largest part of the
scholarly conversation in my area of research.
138
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scholarly articles are an integral part of my every day work in teaching, research and
book/chapter writing and giving professional presentations.
I cite no less than 88% of scholarly articles in my published scholarly journal articles. I
utilize scholarly articles at least 60% of the time in my teaching and my students'
term/Research papers must have 100% scholarly articles as sources to support claims
in their papers.
A critical scientific information resource for rigorous, current information relating to
my research and teaching.
They are essential for learning about similar or related research.
They are key to my research and teaching as I work in an article driven field in the
humanities (linguistics)
They inform the content of my teaching, and influence my thinking related to my
research
Vital. I cannot be informed or position my scholarship within my discipline without
extensive reading in scholarly articles. I also use them as part of my syllabi and to
learn about methods for teaching. As a member of the editorial board of a journal, I
need to be informed about what's current.
Absolutely vital for: State of the science literature reviews for background and
significance of proposed research, Research designs and findings, Lecture content,
Seminar discussions, Personal knowledge development
They keep me abreast of advances in the field, make me aware of new data sources,
and provide inspiration for my own research and teaching.
Because I do research to inform my teaching and my teaching experience often helps
to direct my research, this is not an easy question to answer.
Invaluable in providing theoretical and historiographic framing of my research and
for providing the contours if info I reproduce with students.
They are my main source of information for teaching and report writing.
They are essential to my research because the subject of my research is the scholarly
record. They help me know my teaching by giving breadth to my knowledge.
They are extremely important in stimulating ideas, supporting research and writing
and informing classroom presentations.
Scholarly articles are critical for both research and remaining current in the field.
Inform my research agenda, current research projects and teaching content
My teaching, research, and scholarly activities are grounded in empirical research.
They are essential to my research and teaching. I use them regularly, assign them to
students, cite them to public audiences
central role, research and teaching are based on these
The articles play a major role in keeping both my teaching and research up-to-date.
Use them in both my research and in teaching.
139
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They give me further insight into concepts needed to advance my research, as well as
to allow me to frame ideas better when I teach.
Obviously quite important to research and teaching.
They play a huge role in my research and teaching. Scholarly articles whether in
journals or book collections are a form of information exchange I could not function
without and online resources at this point are indispensable.
Scholarly articles are the main secondary source used in my research (scholarly books
are second), and the second most important source used in my teaching (news sources
are first).
they provide topical overviews as well as specific research for my own papers and or
teaching advancement.
I edit a scholarly journal and read a lot of manuscripts before passing the worthwhile
ones to the editorial board for decision. I also peruse books before sending them out
for review.
Extremely important in research, of considerable importance in teaching at advanced
undergraduate or graduate levels.
Opportunities to teach graduate students how to communicate in writing in coauthored papers * Opportunities to influence professional practice through research
results * Service to the community as a reviewer and journal editor
They are indispensable to my research and teaching.
I read them when I review them. I read them when my students write them. I read
them in the journals I am editor for. I write them regularly.
Quite important for both teaching and research
They are absolutely essential to both teaching and research.
both specific (accuracy, focus, detail, fact-checking) AND general (broadening,
enlarging interdisciplinary and perspective)
Hugely important as most recent discoveries in field; provide book reviews of recent
publications of interest. Also used as assignments in grad seminars.
We received 95 comments to our final comments. These comments can be categorized
into five categories: the role of the library, access / e-resources, print resources,
miscellaneous, and the survey.
Role of the library
•
Often, I would buy the book if I could find a source. For some resources, if they were
not available through the University library, I would not know where to get them
140
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I have access to a great library at work
Browsing for books in the stacks is an essential research technique. My students and I
often find books we could not locate using electronic databases--most recent example:
my students and I were researching an ethnic minority-Karen refugees in Burma. By
browsing in [the] Library stacks, we found "True Love and Bartholomew: Rebels on the
Burmese Border," a critical work on the culture of Karen people. Although I thought
we had done a thorough job of searching the databases, the book was not an obvious
source and one that we would have certainly overlooked. Thank you for keeping the
stacks open for browsing!
ILL is a key service and I expect it to be fast and consistent.
interlibrary loan does not always work.
I think [my university] library has a fewer number of online subscription than the
other institutes that I have been. Also, sometimes [the] library link is not shown for
certain journals (such as APA journals) when I browse online.
I am single and have chosen to spend a good portion of my income acquiring the books
that I need for my work and interests rather than relying on the universities library
system. However, given the authority to do so, I would invest much more heavily in our
library. I believe that it should be open 24/7 and that there should be more dedicated
space for real books and quiet study and less space for the digital twitterati.
i find the holdings of the library disappointing in terms of depth. we are in a difficult
time when many good research materials are indeed online and that is great---but
there are many sources that are vitally important that are neither online nor in the
[library] collection, necessitating the ILL process. it's better than nothing, but takes a
lot of time. frankly, i turn to purchasing many out of print books via Alibris and other
online sources as a fallback....it's just faster and I know I’m going to get what i need
right away in my hand. too bad the library doesn't have better collections----for me the
subject areas are visual arts, music, and cultural journalism in general---the [library]
holdings are pretty thin in these areas.
I cannot speak strongly enough to the importance of maintaining the high standard of
the library system at [my university]. By all means put materials in storage, but never
allow the budget to be undermined or the staff compromised.
[My university] library has been very useful to me in obtaining the research materials I
need. I particularly appreciate the promptness and customer friendly service of the
Inter Library Loan folks.
I absolutely need access to physical books as part of my research. By no means is
everything I need available online, and I regret that my library has made more books
difficult to access by sending them from the stacks to the [off-site] facility. That said, I
love accessing journal articles online when I can: it's a massive increase in
convenience.
141
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The university and associated libraries must continue to maintain the print and online
subscriptions to journals. This is essential for a premier research university such as
[my university] and to sustain external grant funding at a high level.
Love the library and its services.
Try to extend range of publications via interlibrary arrangements.
I use ENORMOUSLY the pdf book resources available through the library. This has
helped not only my work but has increased my ability to pursue other scientific interest
or to enrich class content.
Thanks for the opportunity to share with others the import of the library services,
which I believe are outstanding and helpful
As a creative writer I don't have the same association with Library materials as my
research colleagues
My teaching is in both natural sciences and humanities/social sciences, and I depend
on both professional journals and high end news media (NY-er, NY Review of Books,
NY Times) as well as the online searchable databases in the university library
Access / e-resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Online resources represent a MUCH bigger part of my research sources than print
materials.
It is critical to have a mix of well curated linked resources available. Remote storage
has not created a happy situation at our university. While I regularly use all kinds of
digital sources and create them, print source s are complementary and often digital
resources do not replace them.
This survey is clearly geared toward electronic media; e.g, how many minutes to locate
an article. the reality, in my obscure field is that many of the journal or publications
are not available electronically - or in our library - so if I don't own the publication I
would use library loan or have to go somewhere else. That is I might spend days,
rather than minutes. Also note that in my area older works, often not available in
electronic format, remain key.
free access to electronic format of published journal articles is absolutely essential for
my research
Computer Science may be a special case in that we don't have much use for journals or
books for research
It is a special challenge in terms of expense and time to obtain materials in Japanese,
which I often use.
I rely on both books and journal articles for my research and teaching. Both are very
important for me to successfully do my job.
142
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
See previous comment. For [my university] to be a top-tier research institution, we
need to have more easy access to research documents, journals, e-books, etc.
I need fast and unfettered access to electronic copies of peer-reviewed journal articles.
I also require that these articles be "unsecured" PDFs so that I can use Adobe
Professional and add highlighting and take notes directly in the electronic file and save
such notations.
waste of time
This was a very clunky survey. It needs some smoothing over.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance that electronic access to journal articles
that one can view from lab, home, office, etc.
It is fortunate that I am part of a university setting because, otherwise, many of the
articles would be difficult to find, as well as unattainable unless purchased.
As a poet, my relationship with scholarly sources is much different than in my
scholarship, which is less central to my role. I access scholarly sources primarily for
pedagogical purposes.
Need for institutional access to more tier 1 journals
The question on the use of books was oddly phrased. I do seek books from the library or
request books through interlibrary loan, primarily for historical support of a topic I
am engaged in. The wording forced me to answer the question based on a textbook I
use for a course this semester and I am not sure that this response was the intent of the
question. Please continue to support a wide range of journals through full-text
databases. These subscriptions facilitate rapid acquisition of needed information for
faculty and students.
More and more journal articles are available online, an enormous source of time
efficiency. Efforts should be made to go electronic for all scholarly journals.
The electronic databases of academic journals are vital to my work and the work of my
research and teaching colleagues. They are wonderful resources and very easy to use!
Thanks for asking about this topic. Although my responses reflect a bunch of print
resources (because they are the most recent ones I was working with, I want to note
that most of my research is done using materials obtained online through law-related
databases and the [library’s] electronic database collection. Both are life-savers since
I travel a lot and need to continue my research while traveling.
On-line access to scholarly journals, working paper, conference paper, etc. as well as
on-line databases is essential for my work and that of my colleagues.
On-line sources have been vital for quick bits and updates on information, but when it's
necessary to really think about what I'm reading, working off a computer monitor can
become very distracting and annoying, so for deeper investigation, I prefer printed
materials.
143
Print resources
•
•
•
•
Printed works when available are the best source for me. I don't like to photocopy and
waste paper and toner. I don't mind reading electronic versions, but I still like to be
able to take a printed work out of the office.
I much prefer print versions to online versions, although the immediacy of online
access is a luxury that cannot be denied. However, when the online version is not a
replica of the print version, I feel that the quality is considerably deteriorated. It's as
though the writer were in such a hurry to publish online that they can't bother to
spend the appropriate time and energy to organize their thoughts and present a
coherent argument. I especially cannot stand the online comments from readers that
now appear at the end of an article, where anyone can post their thoughts and
responses! They tend to be so vituperative that I simply leave the online publication
disgusted, but thankful there's no such thing as a gun in their little online hands.
When I must make use of electronic resources (e.g., articles available solely via online
services), I invariably print them out. Although electronic access is a great help to
research, print resources (books, journals, conference proceedings) continue to be both
useful and vital tools for doing research in the humanities, because making use of these
materials requires an extended engagement with and analysis of the material
contained in them.
I don't use new technology for research (such as twitter, I-pads, kindle, etc.). I do
sometimes download articles from JSTOR and read them on my computer, but I always
read books in print version and would never read them online. It is important to have
physical copies of books available for research.
Miscellaneous
•
•
•
•
•
Reading from old or new material, all the more so based on talk or correspondence
with colleagues, is vital to my work.
Thanks and Good luck.
I am not a pure researcher but an evaluator of programs implemented in communities
I see the importance of scholarly articles but they have not been discussed much at [my
university]. For many years I have been aware that society is skeptical of research.
Amazingly, I have met many people in [my department] who have the same negative
attitudes and refuse to consider any scholarly work. Staff should be required to bring
scholarly research into their work. Those who are uninterested should be counseled to
pursue endeavors more suitable to their beliefs.
Thank you!
144
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Please note that my percentages of time devoted to activities is heavily skewed toward
research b/c I am on sabbatical leave this year.
The numbers that I gave are very "rough" if not arbitrary. One picks up things to read
so often and so automatically that all numbers given are somewhat understated. I rely
mostly on article searches by keywords and occasionally authors to find the most
recent publications on my research topic. Articles are important for me because I am
looking for arguments rather than empirical detail. In my current work I am
generating my empirical data from "primary research" -- at this particular time from
previously unmined archives. This is not to say that at a later date I might not rely
more on books, but scholarly articles will always occupy a central position in my work.
ask about awards next year as I suspect a bunch are coming
Thank you
Thank you!
I hope my information helps.
Scholarly articles are critical to my professional work and production.
interesting
Please note that I am an emeritus professor doing volunteer teaching
Some of the questions as to how many minutes spent gathering materials were very
hard to recall/judge. I probably spend more time cruising databases and
bibliographies than indicated.
In responding to the question about number of articles that I read, I excluded the large
number of articles that I read as an editor of an academic journal. I also excluded
articles that my students and I wrote.
lots of time web authoring rather than article writing in past few years -- emphasize
lectures and seminars
I’d spend a fair bit of time searching for various topics on line which did not come out
in this survey
In addition to scholarly production and research (I am at a research intensive
university with a professorial appointment) I also use articles and book chapters in my
teaching, not text books, so easy access for my students is essential.
Please note that research in most of Computer Science (and a few areas of
Mathematics) recognizes the refereed conference (and even the refereed workshop) as
an equal or near-equal venue to refereed journal proceedings. My reported numbers
of publications would have been much different if the question were asked differently.
145
The survey
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Next time allow for the fact that people have multiple responses and limits that are not
yours.
I hope I filled this out correctly. It was a little confusing.
For many of your questions I do not remember the information so I left them blank.
A shorter time frame for the activities (e.g. the past week, rather than 30 days) would
have made the responses more reliable. As you can tell by my non-responses, I simply
don't recall all of the information you are requesting.
I did not answer the age question on purpose.
I enjoyed the survey!!
Thank you, but please add "Transgender" to sex/gender option for more inclusiveness.
interesting survey!
This survey is too long. I didn't discuss last few points because of my other
appointments.
There were some particularly odd questions here...
Interesting research. A lot of what I read for my editorial work would be considered
poorly written, and I am eternally surprised that fellow PhD seem to need writing
coaches as badly as they do. This experience has changed how I look at scholarly
papers in general.
Some parts of this survey is confusing and inconsistent. In some cases my answers are
meaningless because either I did not understand them as they likely do not apply to
me.
Time intensive survey!
at least one of these survey questions does not logically follow from the preceding
questions
Some of the multiple-choice questions did not give enough options. Asking me about
my most recent readings in 3 categories does not necessarily give an accurate view of
my reading habits.
Perhaps you should have the participant define their role early on in the survey so you
may end their participation if they are not in the wanted demographic.
dark blue on gray blue is hard for me to read
Thank you for surveying faculty about their needs. I spend at least 2 hours every day
searching for articles, and there is nothing more disappointing then not being able to
read the full text of an article.
Will the results of this survey be available?
There was no space to define what "Other" was where you asked for a breakdown by
percentage of our weekly professional duties. My "Other" is "Grading."
Perhaps some questions about online versus print journals would be interesting. Also,
a question on the validity of the online sources, as well.
146
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interesting topic, but some of the questions, especially those involving time spent
searching are somewhat arbitrary, since researchers always has their eyes open for
new information and scholarship.
Thanks for doing this - hopefully the provost’s office finally gives our library the
resources it needs.
Thank you for the survey. It was difficult to remember what I read last of each of the
types of publication, the amount of time spent.
This has been interesting but it does not consider the huge amount of time not formally
recognized as "work" that a faculty member spends in preparation for meeting
scholarly expectations.
An odd survey. Doesn't seem to have been written by a scholar who does this sort of
work. So it's hard to see what the use will be.
Major flaw of the survey was when I had to decide whether I used the source for
teaching or research when it was always for BOTH
I find this survey worthless. I read books in the john and they are light reading such as
biographies or readers or anthologies. I also read for pleasure mysteries and history
books usually not in my field. Since I subscribe to various journals such as the
American Historical Review and serve on the editorial board of various journals, which
I receive for reading manuscripts I read whatever is in what I get. I am also asked to
read manuscripts by various presses for whom I review submissions- there is no way to
note that in this survey. I also continue to write and research and in order to do that
read material on line and in print. Since publication can take time that is not shown in
this survey. It was badly set up, and frankly was a stupid waste of my time.
It was a Hobson's choice in trying to distinguish between "keeping up" and "continuing
education"!
Did not understand quite a few of the questions.
some parts of this survey were annoying. I don't think of myself as searching for
"information" so much as for knowledge. and I wish there had been fewer bullet points
and space for more qualitative comments along the way.
I left questions blank where I did not understand the question.
The information provided about books might just as well have been treated as
technical manuals.
The majority of the comments describe the importance of articles in their work.
Many respondents noted that they were “essential,” crucial,” “critical,” and “fundamental”
147
to their work as researchers and instructors. These articles keep them up-to-date in the
development of their fields and inspire new ideas for themselves and their students.
148
Role of Library Collections
149
We re-categorized how someone obtains scholarly reading material into three basic
categories: library-provided, personal subscription/purchase, and other. We included
interlibrary loan, library collections/subscriptions, and school/department collections with
library-provided material. Personal sources included purchased copies and personal
subscriptions. The other sources include websites, institutional repository, free web
journals, and publishers.
Since 1977, we have found an increasing reliance on library-provided articles and a
decrease in personal journal subscriptions in the United States (King et al. 2003). Unlike
article readings, the library is not the primary source of book, or other publication
readings. While 46% of article readings are obtained from a library subscription, we
assume many of the articles the respondents thought came from a free web journal (8%) or
a school/department subscription (8%) are actually from the library. Academics cannot
always distinguish what is free-on-the-web from what is obtained though the library (e.g., a
library-provided article accessed through Google Scholar).
Over half (55%) of article readings, 28% of book readings and only 9% of other
publication readings are obtained from a library collection or subscription. Only 15% of
article readings are from a personal subscription. Unlike article or other publication
readings, book readings are more likely to be obtained from a personal source (28%). The
majority of other publications are from an “other” source (69%); these include a website
(45%), “other” sources (12%), colleague (8%) or publisher (6%).
150
Table 73. Source of Reading by US Faculty
Article
Library-provided
Personal source
Others
Total
N
335
89
185
609
Book
%
55.0
14.6
16.7
100.0
N
142
198
163
503
%
28.2
39.4
32.4
100.0
Other
Publication
N
%
40
9.4
92
21.5
295
69.1
427
100.0
A 2011 RIN study found a relationship between the institution’s library and its
research performance. The RIN study concludes that easy access to high-quality content is
a key foundation for good research, and when the library works in partnership with
researchers it enables better library services and creates top researchers. We found a
similar association between the library’s resources and its support of research (χ2 =60.556,
p <.0001). Over half (59%) of the articles obtained from the library are read for the
principal purpose of research (Table 74). Only 35% of articles obtained from a personal
subscription and 36% of articles from other sources are for the principal purpose of
research. Fifty-five percent of library-provided books (78 of 142) and 60% of library-
provided other publications (24 of 40) are for the principal purpose of research.
Principal Purpose
Table 74. Association between Principal Purpose of Reading and Source of Article by
US Faculty
Library
Personal
Others
Row Total
Provided
Provided
193
30
82
305
Research
58.7%
35.3%
46.3%
51.6%
66
22
30
118
Teaching
20.1%
25.9%
16.9%
20.0%
15
20
24
59
Current awareness
4.6%
23.5%
13.6%
10.0%
55
13
41
109
Others
16.7%
15.3%
23.2%
18.4%
329
85
177
591
Column Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
151
The library’s collections provide access to older articles in addition to the current
collections. Just under half (47%) of the library-provided articles are in their first two
years of publication, 15% are over ten years old (χ2 =58.261, p <.0001). Regardless of the
age of the publication, all of library-provided articles are from its electronic collections.
Our findings show the library’s back files in addition to current subscriptions are a key
investment.
Value of the library for scholarly work and the research can be represented by how
many hours per year each faculty member dedicates to library-provided reading. Based on
past methodology that creates a formula to measure faculty output based on library input,
we measured the library’s value by the time spent using library reading material, assuming
that scholarly readings are important for quality research, teaching, and other work
activities (Luther 2008). We can illustrate the total amount of reading by each faculty
member by using a simple formula of time spent reading each material multiplied by the
number of each material read per month multiplied by 12 to calculate an annual total. 18
We then multiply the total amount by the percentage obtained from the library to
determine the number of hours per year each faculty member devotes to library-based
work (Table 75).
Article
Book
Other
Publication
18
Excludes outliers.
Table 75. Value of Library Resources to US Faculty
Time per
Number
Multiplied
Percent
reading
read per
by 12
from
(minutes)
month
months
library
33
21
12
.55
101
7
12
.28
29
10
12
152
.09
TOTAL
76 hours
40 hours
5 hours
Of the 139 hours per year faculty members spend reading scholarly articles, 76 of
those hours are spent on library-provided article readings. Of the 142 hours per year they
spend on scholarly book readings, 40 of those are hours are dedicated to library-provided
book readings. Academics spend approximately 58 hours per year on other publication
readings, and of those hours only five are dedicated to library-provided publications.
Annually, faculty members spend 121 hours of their work time with library-provided
material, or the equivalent of 15 eight-hour days. Clearly, the amount of time spent
reading library-provided material has a profound impact on the quality and focus of
academic work and research.
We assume that faculty spend more time per academic year (12 months) with
library-provided articles and books compared to undergraduates. Faculty spend
approximately 76 hours with library-provided articles, while undergraduate students
spend 25 hours in a year (9 months). However, graduate students spend more time on
library provided articles (143 hours) than faculty members per academic year (12
months). Faculty also spend around 40 hours per year and undergraduate students spend
around 35 hours per year on library-provided books, graduate students spend on average
59 hours per year dedicated to library-provided books. These differences are because
graduate students obtain more articles (60%) from the library than undergraduates (40%)
and faculty (55%), and read more articles than undergraduates (M=15) and faculty (M=21).
Graduate students also obtain more books (32%) from the library than undergraduates
(22%) and faculty (28%), but read fewer books than faculty (M=7). Graduate students
read approximately the same number of books per month as undergraduates (6).
153
Academics read a variety of scholarly materials on a monthly basis. Their readings
have a profound impact on their research and other work duties, often improving the
quality and results. Academics now have nearly instant access to their library’s collections,
e-mails with colleagues, social media, and other websites. The problem now is how to
weed through all the material and figure out what is the most relevant and highest quality.
Time becomes a major deciding factor. Currently, the library’s e-collections and discovery
tools provide a convenient source of scholarly articles, and as a result, are the most likely
source of articles. On the other hand, academics are not using the library as often for books
and other publications, most likely because the other sources are more convenient. The
library should use its electronic journal collections as a model for the future of its book and
other publication collections. Academics are responding well to electronic sources, from ebooks to social media, and furthering the library’s use of those media will only improve the
value of the library.
The value of scholarly material is apparent from our study, and by continuing to
improve the faculty’s access to scholarly material will only help to improve the quality of
research and work.
154
Bibliography
155
Andrews, J. “The Use of the Critical Incident Research Technique in an Academic Library.”
Library & Information Research News 14, no. 50 (1991): 22-27.
Belefant-Miller, Helen and Donald W. King. “How, What and Why Science Faculty Read.”
Science and Technology Libraries 19, no. 2 (2001): 91-112.
Brown, Cecelia M. “The Role of Electronic Preprints in Chemical Communication: Analysis
of Citation, Usage and Acceptance in the Journal Literature.” Journal of the American
Society of Information Science and Technology 54, no. 5 (2003): 362-371.
Chrzastowski, Tina E. “Assessing the Value of Ebooks to Academic Libraries and Users.”
Proceedings of the 9th Northumbria International Conference on Performance
Measurement in Libraries and Information Services. University of York, United
Kingdom. 2011. In Press. http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/28612
CIBER. JISC National E-Books Observatory Project: Key Findings and Recommendations Final
Report. London: CIBER, 2009. http://observatory.jiscebooks.org/reports/jiscnational-e-books-observatory-project-key-findings-and-recommendations/.
Cunningham, Donald, Tracey Randolph, and Kent Wagoner. 2012. University of Tennessee,
Knoxville Fact Book. University of Tennessee, http://oira.utk.edu/factbook.
Flanagan, J.C. “The Critical Incident Technique.” Psychological Bulletin 52, no. 4 (1954):
327-358.
Folb, Barbara L., Charles B. Wessel, and Leslie J. Czechowski. “Clinical and Academic Use of
Electronic and Print Books: The Health Sciences Library System E-book Study at the
University of Pittsburgh.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 9, no. 3 (2011):
218-228. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.009
Fry, Jenny and Sanna Talja. The Cultural Shaping of Scholarly Communication: Explaining
Ejournal Use within and across Academic Fields. Proceedings of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 41 (2004): 20-30. Washington, DC:
American Society for Information Science.
Griffiths, J.M. and Donald W. King. A Manual on the Evaluation of Information Centers and
Services: NATO, AGARD. New York: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1991.
156
Guthrie, Kevin. Revitalizing Older Published Literature: Preliminary Lessons from the Use of
JSTOR. Ed. Jeffrey MacKie-Mason and Wendy P. Lougee. Economics and Usage of
Digital Library Collections Conference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
Healy, Leigh Watson, Lynn Dagar, and Katherine Medaglia Wilkie. Custom Report Prepared
for the Digital Library Federation/Council on Library and Information Resources.
Burlingame, CA: Outsell, 2002.
Herman, Eti. “Research in Progress: Some Preliminary and Key Insights into the
Information Needs of the Contemporary Academic Researcher, Part 2.” Aslib
Proceedings, 56 (2004): 118-131. doi: 10.1108/00012530410529495.
Imholz, Susan and Jennifer Weil Arns. “Worth Their Weight: An Assessment of the Evolving
Field of Library Valuation.” New York: Americans for Libraries Council, 2007.
www.ala.org/research/files/librarystats/worththeirweight.pdf.
JISC. “Activities by Topic: Web 2.0.” Last modified 20 September 2010.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/topics/web2.aspx.
King, Donald W. and Carol Tenopir. “Using and Reading Scholarly Literature.” In Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology 34, edited by M. Williams, 423-477.
Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., 2001.
King, Donald W., Carol Tenopir, Carol H. Montgomery, and Sarah E. Aerni. “Patterns of
Journal Use by Faculty at Three Diverse Universities.” D-Lib Magazine 9, no. 10
(October 2003). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/king/10king.html.
King, Donald W., Carol Tenopir, Songphan Choemprayong, and Lei Wu. “Scholarly Journal
Information Seeking and Reading Patterns of Faculty at Five U.S. Universities.”
Learned Publishing, 22 no. 2 (April 2009): 126-144. doi: 10.1087/2009208.
King, Donald W., Dennis D. McDonald, and Nancy K. Roderer. Scientific Journals in the United
States: Their Production, Use and Economics. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross
Publishing Company (Division of Academic Press), 1981.
Luther, Judy. “University Investment in the Library: What’s the Return? A Case Study at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.” San Diego: Elsevier Library Connect
White Paper, 2008.
http://libraryconnectarchive.elsevier.com/whitepapers/0108/lcwp0101.pdf.
157
Machlup, Fritz. “Uses, Value, and Benefits of Knowledge.” Science Communication 1, no. 1
(1979): 62-81. doi: 10.1177/107554707900100104.
Maughan, P.D. “Library Resources and Services: A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Faculty and
Graduate Student Use and Satisfaction.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 25, no. 5
(September 1999): 354-366.
Odlyzko, Andrew M. “The Rapid Evolution of Scholarly Communication.” Conference on the
Economics and Usage of Digital Library Collections (Ann Arbor, MI: March 23-24,
2000).
Radford, M.L. “The Critical Incident Technique and the Qualitative Evaluation of the
Connecting Libraries and Schools Projects,” Library Trends 55, no. 1 (2006): 46-64.
Research Information Network. If You Build It, Will They Come? How Researchers Perceive
and Use Web 2.0. London: A RIN Report, July 2010.
Research Information Network. The Value of Libraries for Research and Researchers. A RIN
and RLUK Report. March 2011.
http://www.rluk.ac.uk/files/Value%20of%20Libraries%20TG_0.pdf.
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., and Watkinson, A. “Social Media Use in the
Research Workflow,” Learned Publishing, 24, no. 3 (2011): 183-195.
Shelburne W.A. “E-book Usage in an Academic Library: User Attitudes and
Behaviors.” Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 33, no. 2-3 (2009):
59-72. doi: 10.1016/j.lcats.2009.04.002.
Talja, Sanna and Hanni Maula. “Reasons for the Use and Non-use of Electronic Journals and
Databases: A Domain Analytic Study in Four Scholarly Disciplines.” Journal of
Documentation 59, no. 6 (2003): 673−691.
Tenopir, Carol, Concepcion S. Wilson, Pertti Vakkari, Sanna Talja, and Donald W. King.
“Cross Country Comparison of Scholarly E-Reading Patterns in Australia, Finland
and the United States.” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 41, no. 1 (March
2010): 26-41.
Tenopir, Carol and Donald W. King. Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists,
Librarians, and Publishers. Washington, D.C.: Special Libraries Association, 2000.
158
Tenopir, Carol, Donald W. King, Peter Boyce, Matt Grayson, and Keri-Lynn Paulson. “Relying
on Electronic Journals: Reading Patterns of Astronomers.” Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 56, no. 8 (June 2005): 786802.
Tenopir, Carol, Donald W. King, Sheri Edwards, and Lei Wu. “Electronic Journals and
Changes in Scholarly Article Seeking and Reading Patterns.” Aslib Proceedings: New
Information Perspectives 61, no. 1 (2009): 5. doi: 10.1108/00012530910932267.
Tenopir, Carol, Rachel Volentine, and Donald W. King. UK Scholarly Reading and the Value of
Library Resources: Summary Results of the Study Conducted Spring 2011 Study on
behalf of JISC Collections, 2012. http://www.jisccollections.ac.uk/Reports/ukscholarlyreadingreport/.
159
Copy of Survey
160
Section 1: Scholarly Article Reading (print and online)
1. In the past month (30 days), approximately how many scholarly articles have you
read? Articles can include those found in journal issues, websites, or separate
copies such as preprints, reprints, and other electronic or paper copies. Reading is
defined as going beyond the table of contents, title, and abstract to the body of the
article. Number of articles read (including skimmed) in the past month:
___________________________
The following questions in this section refer to the SCHOLARLY ARTICLE YOU READ
MOST RECENTLY, even if you had previously read this article. Note that while this
last reading may not be typical, it will help us establish the range of patterns in
reading behavior.
2. What is the title of the journal from which this last article was read or, if not from a
journal, what is the topic of the article?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3. What year was the last article you read published/posted?
___________________________
4. How thoroughly did you read this article?
o I read all of it with great care
o I read parts of it with great care
o I read with attention to the main points
o I read only specific sections (e.g., figures, conclusions)
o I skimmed it just to get the idea
5. How long (in minutes) did you spend reading this last article?
In minutes: ____________________________________
6. Had you previously read this article, i.e., is this a re-reading?
o Yes
o No
161
7. Prior to your first reading of this article, did you know the information reported or
discussed in this article?
o Yes, all of it
o Yes, some of it
o No
8. How did you first find out about the information?
o Conference or workshop
o Informal discussion with colleagues
o Listserv or blog
o Journal article
o E-mail from colleague
o Preprint / e-print service (e.g., arXiv.org)
o Website of author
o Institutional Repository
o Other (please specify): __________________________________________
9. How did you become aware of the last article you read?
o Found while browsing (without a specific objective in mind)
o Found while I (or someone on my behalf) was searching (e.g., by subject or
author’s name)
o Cited in another publication
o Another person (e.g., a colleague) told me about it
o Do not know / Do not remember
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
10. Found while browsing:
o Personal print subscription
o Personal online subscription
o Library print subscription
o Library online subscription
o School, department, etc. print subscription
o School, department, etc. online subscription
o Website
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
11. Approximately how much time did you spend browsing:
In minutes: ____________________________________________
162
12. Found while I (or someone on my behalf) was searching:
o Web search engine (e.g., Google or Google Scholar)
o Electronic indexing / abstracting service (e.g., Academic Search Premier,
ERIC)
o Print index or abstract
o Online journal collection (e.g., HighWire, JSTOR)
o Online current awareness service (e.g., Current Contents)
o Preprint / e-print service (e.g., arXiv.org)
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
13. Approximately how much time (in minutes) did you (or someone on your behalf)
spend searching
In minutes: _________________________________________
14. As a result, how many articles did you read and/or plan to read?
_______________________________________________
15. After you became aware of this article, from where did you obtain it?
o Personal subscription
o Library subscription
o School, department, etc. subscription
o Institutional Repository
o Free web journal
o Preprint copy
o Copy of the article from a colleague, , author, etc.
o Interlibrary loan / document delivery service
o An author’s website
o Other website
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
16. This source was:
o Print
o Electronic
17. From this same source (e.g., journal, author’s website, preprint archive), how many
articles did you read in the last twelve months? (If the answer is zero, please enter
“0” instead of leaving the box blank).
______________________________________________________
163
18. After you identified this article, approximately how much time (in minutes) did you
and/or someone else on your behalf (e.g., graduate student, lab assistant, librarian)
spend in each of the following activities (If no time was spent, please enter “0”)?
In minutes
Obtain, request, receive or download and display the article ____________________________
Photocopy or print out the article: ________________________________________
Other: ____________________________________________
19. Thinking back to the source of the article, where would you obtain the information if
that source were not available (e.g., library or personal subscription, archive, etc.)?
o I would not bother getting the information
o I would obtain the information from another source
20. Please specify source here:
o I would obtain the information from a colleague
o I would obtain the information by using/visiting another library
o I would obtain the information by purchasing my own copy
o I would obtain the information from another source (Please specify):
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
21. In order to obtain the same information, if this source were not available, I would
expect to spend (If the answer is zero, please enter “0” instead of leaving the box
blank)?
o In minutes: _________________________________________
o In dollars: ___________________________________________
22. In what format was the article when you read it?
o Print article in a print journal
o Photocopy or fax copy
o Online computer screen
o Previously downloaded / saved and read on computer screen
o On a mobile, e-reader, or tablet screen
o Downloaded and printed on paper
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
164
23. Where were you when you read this article?
o Office or lab
o Library
o Home
o Traveling or commuting
o Elsewhere (please specify): ____________________________________________
24. For what principal purpose was this article read? (Choose only the best answer)
o Research
o Teaching
o Administration
o Current awareness / keeping up
o Writing proposals, reports, articles, etc.
o Consulting, advising others
o Internal or external presentations (e.g., lecture or conference paper)
o Continuing education for self
o Other (please specify): __________________________________________
25. How important is the information contained in this article to achieving your
principal purpose?
o Not at all important
o Somewhat important
o Important
o Very important
o Absolutely essential
26. In what ways did the reading of the article affect the principal purpose? (Choose all
that apply)
□ It improved the result
□ It narrowed / broadened / changed the tone
□ It inspired new thinking / ideas
□ It resulted in collaboration / joint research
□ It wasted my time
□ It resulted in faster completion
□ It resolved technical problems
□ It made me question my work
□ It saved time or other resources
□ Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
165
27. Did you cite this article or do you plan to cite it in a paper or report?
o No
o Maybe
o Already did
o Will in the future
Section 2: Book Reading (print and online)
28. In the past month (30 days) approximately how many books or parts of books did
you read for school work? Include reading from a portion of the book such as
skimming or reading a chapter. Include books read in print or electronic format. (If
none, please enter “0” instead of leaving a blank.
______________________________________________________
The following questions in this section refer to the BOOK FROM WHICH YOU READ
MOST RECENTLY. Note that this last reading may not be typical, but will help
establish the range of patterns in reading behavior.
29. What is the approximate title or topic of the book from which you last read?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
30. On how many occasions did you read from this book in the past month (30 days)?
________________________________________
31. About how much total time (in minutes) did you spend reading this book in the past
month?
_________________________________________
166
32. How did you become aware of this last book from which you read?
o Found while browsing (without a specific objective in mind)
o Found while I (or someone on my behalf) was searching (e.g., by subject or
author’s name)
o Cited in another publication
o Another person (e.g., a colleague) told me about it
o Promotional email or web advertisement
o Do not know / Do not remember
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
33. Approximately how much time (in minutes) did you or someone on your behalf
spend becoming aware of this publication? (e.g., browsing, searching)
________________________________________________
34. After you became aware of this book, from where did you obtain it?
o I bought it for myself
o The library or archive collections (including main or branch)
o Interlibrary loan or document delivery service
o School or department collection (e.g., not managed by library)
o A colleague, author, or other person provided it to me
o A free, advanced, or purchased copy from the publisher
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
35. In what format was the book when you obtained it?
o Print
o Electronic
36. Thinking back to where you obtained the book (e.g., library collection, department
collection, interlibrary loan), where would you obtain the information if that source
were not available?
o I would not bother getting the information
o I would obtain the information from another source
167
37. For what principal purpose did you use, or do you plan to use, the information
obtained from the book you read? (Choose only the best answer)
o Research
o Teaching
o Administration
o Current awareness / keeping up
o Writing proposals, reports, articles, etc. (e.g., funding / grant proposals)
o Consulting / advising others
o Internal or external presentations (e.g., lecture or conference paper)
o Continuing education for self
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
38. How important is the information contained in this book to achieving your principal
purpose?
o Not at all important
o Somewhat important
o Important
o Very important
o Absolutely essential
39. In what ways did the reading of the book affect the principal purpose? (Choose all
that apply)
□ It improved the result
□ It narrowed / broadened / changed the tone
□ It inspired new thinking / ideas
□ It resulted in collaboration / joint research
□ It wasted my time
□ It resulted in faster completion
□ It resolved technical problems
□ It made me question my work
□ It saved time or other resources
□ Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
40. Did you cite this book or do you plan to cite it in another publication (e.g., article,
report, book, published proceeding)?
o No
o Maybe
o Already did
o Will in the future
168
Section 3: Other Publication Reading (print and online)
41. In the past month (30 days) approximately how many other publications (nonarticle
and book readings) have you read for your work? Include conference proceedings,
government documents, technical reports, magazines, trade journals, etc. (If none,
please enter “0” instead of leaving a blank).
______________________________________________________
The following questions in this section refer to the OTHER PUBLICATION FROM
WHICH YOU MOST RECENTLY READ. Note that this last reading may not be typical,
but will help establish the range of patterns in reading behavior.
42. What type of publication did you most recently read?
o Conference proceedings
o Government document or other technical report
o Magazine / trade journal
o News source
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
43. About how much total time (in minutes) did you spend reading this last publication?
_________________________________________
44. Approximately how much time (in minutes) did you or someone on your behalf
spend becoming aware of this publication? (e.g., browsing, searching)
________________________________________________
45. After you became aware of this book, from where did you obtain it?
o I bought it for myself
o The library or archive collections (including main or branch)
o Interlibrary loan or document delivery service
o School or department collection (e.g., not managed by library)
o A colleague, author, or other person provided it to me
o A free, advanced, or purchased copy from the publisher
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
46. In what format was the publication when you obtained it?
o Print
o Electronic
169
47. Thinking back to where you obtained the publication (e.g., library collection,
department collection, interlibrary loan), where would you obtain the information if
that source were not available?
o I would not bother getting the information
o I would obtain the information from another source
48. For what principal purpose did you use, or do you plan to use, the information
obtained from the other publication you last read? (Choose only the best answer)
o Research
o Teaching
o Administration
o Current awareness / keeping up
o Writing proposals, reports, articles, etc. (e.g., funding / grant proposals)
o Consulting / advising others
o Internal or external presentations (e.g., lecture or conference paper)
o Continuing education for self
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
49. How important is the information contained in this publication to achieving your
principal purpose?
o Not at all important
o Somewhat important
o Important
o Very important
o Absolutely essential
50. In what ways did the reading of the publication affect the principal purpose?
(Choose all that apply)
□ It improved the result
□ It narrowed / broadened / changed the tone
□ It inspired new thinking / ideas
□ It resulted in collaboration / joint research
□ It wasted my time
□ It resulted in faster completion
□ It resolved technical problems
□ It made me question my work
□ It saved time or other resources
□ Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
170
51. Did you cite this publication or do you plan to cite it in another publication (e.g.,
article, report, book, published proceeding)?
o No
o Maybe
o Already did
o Will in the future
Section 4: Social Media
52. How often do you read / view / participate in each of the following electronic /
social media for work related purposes (e.g., teaching, research, etc.)?
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Occasionally
Never
○
○
○
○
○
Blogging (e.g., WordPress,
Blogster)
○
○
○
○
○
Microblogging (e.g.,
Twitter)
○
○
○
○
○
RSS feeds
○
○
○
○
○
Social networking (e.g.,
Facebook)
○
○
○
○
○
Social tagging (e.g.,
Delicious)
○
○
○
○
○
Collaborative authoring
(e.g., Google docs,
CiteULike)
○
○
○
○
○
User comments in articles
○
○
○
○
○
Image sharing (e.g., Flickr)
○
○
○
○
○
Audio sharing (e.g.,
Podcasts)
○
○
○
○
○
Video sharing (e.g.,
YouTube)
171
53. How often do you create each of the following electronic / social media tools for
work related purposes (e.g., teaching, research, etc.)?
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Occasionally
Never
○
○
○
○
○
Blogging (e.g.,
WordPress, Blogster)
○
○
○
○
○
Microblogging (e.g.,
Twitter)
○
○
○
○
○
RSS feeds
○
○
○
○
○
Social networking (e.g.,
Facebook)
○
○
○
○
○
Social tagging (e.g.,
Delicious)
○
○
○
○
Collaborative authoring ○
(e.g., Google docs,
CiteULike)
○
○
○
○
○
User comments in
articles
○
○
○
○
○
Image sharing (e.g.,
Flickr)
○
○
○
○
○
Audio sharing (e.g.,
Podcasts)
○
○
○
○
○
Video sharing (e.g.,
YouTube)
172
Section 4: Demographics
You are almost finished!
54. Which of the following best describes your academic discipline?
o Life sciences
o Physical sciences
o Medical sciences
o Computer science
o Mathematics
o Engineering
o Social sciences
o Business
o Psychology
o Education
o Humanities
o Fine Arts
o Law
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
55. What is your academic status?
o Professor
o Associate Professor
o Assistant Professor
o Instructor / Lecturer
o Adjunct
o Graduate student
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
56. What is your age?
________________________________________
57. Are you:
o Male
o Female
173
58. What source did you use for the last substantive piece of information in your work?
o Journal article
o Conference proceeding
o Web site
o Magazine article
o Book or book chapter
o Personal contact
o Other (please specify): ____________________________________________
59. What percentage of your work time do you spend doing the following? (The total
should equal 100%. If the answer is zero, please enter “0” instead of leaving a
blank.)
% Teaching ______________
% Research and Writing __________________
% Administration __________________
% Service (to department, college, wider community) ___________________
% Consulting / advising ___________________
% Other ________________________
60. In the past two years, how many of the following have you published? (If the answer
is zero, please enter “0” instead of leaving a blank.)
Articles in refereed scholarly journals _______________________
Non-refereed articles __________________________
Scholarly books ________________________
Chapters in scholarly books, proceedings, etc. ____________________________
Other ________________________________
61. In the past two years, have you received any awards or special recognition for your
research or other profession-related contributions?
o Yes
o No
62. Briefly describe your awards:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
174
63. How many personal subscriptions to professional journals do you receive, including
those obtained as a member of a professional society? (Personal subscriptions are
those that are personally addressed to you at your home, office, or lab.) If the
answer is zero, please enter “0” instead of leaving a blank.
Print-only subscriptions ___________________________________________
Electronic-only subscriptions _____________________________________
Subscriptions that include both print and electronic versions
_______________________________________________________________________
64. What role do scholarly articles play in your research, teaching, or other scholarly
activities? Please comment.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
65. Final comments:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
You’ve reached the end of the survey. We appreciate your participation. Thank you!
175