 Well, welcome to our closing session for the spring 2013 CNI member meeting. I hope you've had a very informative day and a half and that you've also had some opportunities to catch up with old friends and colleagues and to meet some new ones. I have to say it's always a little frustrating for me because I try and check in on most of the breakout sessions and I've seen some wonderful, wonderful things, most of which I couldn't stay through all the way, but at least based on what I've seen I hope that you've had a really tremendous time at this meeting. And I was delighted to see the weather cooperated last night so I hope some of you managed to get out of the hotel a little bit and enjoy some of it. I just have a few very brief bits of housekeeping to see too before I introduce our closing plenary. I'll just remind you that we've done away with printed evaluations and you'll be getting an email with a URL to a meeting evaluation form shortly so keep your eye open for that. In your packet you have a list of upcoming dates for our December 2013 and December 2014 meetings. Both of those will be held at the Capitol Hilton in Washington, D.C. and I hope you'll be able to join us for those. You also have the date for next spring's meeting which will be in St. Louis, a city we've not been to before and which I hope you'll be able to join us in. I want to ask for a round of applause for our breakout speakers. This is always so much the core of the meeting and I think we really had an extraordinary set this time and I'd like you to join me in thanking everyone who contributed to those breakouts. We have been, I will also just mention, changing the way we capture some bits of the meeting. For the opening and closing plenaries we do full scale video capture and those go up on the web as many of you know and we're continuing to do that and this meeting will be televised as it were. We have moved to a different system for the breakouts that we capture. We don't try and capture all of the breakouts but we're using a voiceover PowerPoint system for that. That's allowed us to capture more videos or capture more breakouts than we've been able to do in the past. I think that you'll appreciate this because it will give you a richer set of resources to share with colleagues and to use yourself on our website. One of the byproducts of that is that it's been a little more challenging to get everything going and I'd like to take a moment to thank the volunteers from the University of Texas at San Antonio Library who were kind enough to help us get all of that rolling. Your help is very much appreciated. Finally, I'd like to say a thanks to the CNI staff who have done their usual amazing job at making everything happen from registration to technology, to scheduling, to everything else and I'd ask you to please join me in thanking them for their help. A final scheduling note before I forget, there is one upcoming date that is not in your packet although it often is at this meeting. That's the date for the next International Digital Curation Conference. That's because we haven't set the date yet. It will be in early 2014, probably the January-February timeframe and as soon as we have that nailed down I will be sending out of course a hold the date announcement to CNI announced so watch for that one. Now that was fairly brief I hope and not too painful and allows me to turn to introducing our closing plenary session which is going to present the results or at least the initial results. I have a feeling people are going to be mining this data for some time to come but we're at least going to get a look at the initial results from the Ithaca faculty survey from 2012. This is going to be the first release of these results and I'm very eager to see what surprises are lurking in here. To take us through this we have Roger Schoenfeld and Deanna Markham both from Ithaca and SNR. Deanna has fairly recently after doing wonderful service on all of our behalf at the Library of Congress come to Ithaca as the managing director of SNR. You should be familiar with Roger's work. He's a program director there and has written a large number of reports and studies on all kinds of fascinating things which I'm sure you've had a chance to look at. They're joined by Judy Russell from the University of Florida who is wearing a couple of hats here. She was a member of the advisory committee for the study. She's going to as a leader in academia and in the research library circles give some reaction to it and she's also involved in piloting a localization version of the study and they'll explain more about this sort of localization strategy which is a new development of this work that I think is exceedingly interesting. So without further ado I will turn it over to our plenary speakers. Thank you Cliff and good afternoon everyone. We're really delighted to be at CNI to present the 2012 faculty survey conducted in the United States. The CNI audience will be the first to hear these findings and we think it's particularly appropriate that this is the audience where we launch the the results. I also want to thank Cliff and Joan for including us in this plenary session. We are we enjoyed the support of CNI for many years and we're grateful for it and we're really pleased to be part of the program. Ithaca SNR has been conducting a survey of US faculty every three years since the year 2000. So this is the fifth survey. Our goal has been to understand how scholarly practices and behaviors are changing as well as to understand how their expectations of and relationships with the organizations that support them, libraries, publishers and scholarly societies may be changing. The faculty survey is the quantitative part of our work and we also have a qualitative component. We have been doing studies in disciplines to understand more about how faculty attitudes and behaviors are changing. We have completed the studies of the disciplines of history and chemistry. A study of art history is underway and you can see here the reports that have been published thus far and we invite you to look at these reports on our website and also to follow the qualitative studies that we're doing. These three are in progress or completed but we have a number that we anticipate in the near future. There are several features of the faculty survey that are new this year and so I want to go through those with you. The first is that we've updated the methodology. We've always done a paper survey until now and this was the first year of doing an online survey so we too have gone digital. We've used an advisory committee for this year's study and we are very grateful to them. This is also the first year we've had an international survey. That is we've conducted a survey in the United States. We've conducted the same survey in the United Kingdom. That report is now in progress. We had committees in both instances. The U.S. advisory committee has been made up of librarians, publishers and scholarly society executives. The U.K. committee was formed by representatives of the research libraries of U.K. and JISC. The fourth new feature is one Cliff alluded to. For the first time this year we have piloted a project in the United States that allows individual institutions to run this survey on their own campuses. This allows individual institutions an opportunity to look at their faculty in comparison to the national findings and you'll hear a little bit more about that later. One of the values of the triennial survey is that we track attitudes and behaviors over time but in each survey cycle we focus on a few questions or topics that seem particularly important at that time. In the 2012 survey we looked more closely at the research processes, teaching practices and the role of scholarly societies in addition to our perennial questions about research dissemination, communication and the academic library. The U.S. faculty survey will be officially released on Monday, April 8th and the U.K. findings will be available at the end of May. And just to be very clear with this audience today we are talking only about the U.S. survey findings. We are enormously grateful to the sponsors of our survey. All of the institutions represented by these logos have made valuable contributions to the process and we are most grateful to them. We are keenly aware that any time you see survey results the great temptation is to go deeper and ask why. We hope several months now of engaging with you and many others to try to explore the meaning of these results but first we begin with the results themselves and so for the meaty part of the presentation I turn to my colleague Roger. Thank you. I am really thrilled to have the opportunity to share a little bit of some of the key findings from our project this cycle and by way of beginning let me start with just a few words about the methodology that we have utilized. The population of the survey focuses on faculty members from four-year colleges and universities here in the United States chosen from eight Carnegie classifications and including all fields of study arts and sciences all the arts and sciences fields in many of the professions with the key exceptions of agriculture and health sciences so no medicine no nursing and no agriculture. That's a historical choice that we've made at least in the past. I want to really emphasize something that Diana said we have transitioned to a digital methodology for the first time this year and we really planned that quite carefully following the 2009 paper survey immediately following it we conducted a digital pilot project to see whether the two methods would be comparable in terms of the types of responses that we received and indeed they were to the extent that they gave us confidence moving forward in that direction that's one of several ways that we planned the transition and so we're confident that when you see when I'll show you some findings that track from 2009 or earlier up through fall 2012 that that's not somehow an artifact of the methodological shift but rather that it would have to be explained by other factors. So in September earlier this academic year we emailed 160,000 invitations and reminders to a randomly selected group of faculty members. We received 5261 responses for 3.5% response rate. Some of you will say well that's a low response rate and I want to just take a moment to emphasize that of course the rate of response is not the key determinant in whether the results are interpretable but rather whether they're representative of the underlying population. We've taken a number of steps to check that and be sure that they are. We've done a little bit of disciplinary weighting as a result of that and what you'll see are not only findings in the aggregate but also an ability for us to stratify by a number of key fields things like institutional type, by Carnegie classifications in the aggregate and disciplinary groupings where you'll see humanists and social scientists and scientists. And just one quick note, I'll often present findings where people are agreeing very strongly with a statement will be how I'm saying it or they feel very strongly about something and what that means is that we ask them on a 10 point scale and I'm giving you the share that have said an 8, 9 or 10 in response to that so that's how we interpret very strong agreement for the purposes of the analysis here today. So I'll be speaking about four broad substantive sections here. One is discovery and access, then dissemination, the role of the library and finally the format transitions. I want to indicate that we have not covered today three areas that are treated at some length in the report that will be out on Monday just due to time constraints and an effort to try to optimize for this audience here. Things like research topics and practices and collaboration, academic teaching methods and practices and then the role and value of the scholarly society. We have very interesting findings in those areas but not possible to include them today unfortunately. So discovery and access is an area that we've been tracking in this survey program for quite a number of years now and I want to start with one of the questions that we've been tracking for quite some time so that you can see a trend line to get us started. A question that may be familiar to some, typically when you are conducting academic research which of these four starting points do you use to begin locating information for your research? We looked at a specific electronic research resource, a general purpose web search engine, your online library catalog or the library building. I know that the library building in particular and even the idea of thinking of a library catalog as a stand-alone tool may feel a little bit dated but it's important that we use the same language in the question to be able to track things over the course of time so that's the trade-off that's being made there and over the course of time from 2003 to 2006 to 2009 we saw a fairly consistent trend of movement towards network level starting points, the first two here that are listed and away from what you might consider to be the more local starting points and so when I put up the slide of how things have changed that pattern is actually interrupted in some very interesting ways so let me draw your attention on the left to the specific electronic research resource where the growth in the share that reports starting there has been arrested and indeed even reversed just a very slight amount. The general purpose search engine continues it's seemingly inexorable increase and the library catalog which had been falling off gradually as a starting point that fall-off has been again arrested and just slightly reversed. There may be any number of explanations for the shift in the pattern that we're seeing in this cycle but certainly the investments that libraries have been making in a variety of different kinds of discovery services and tools seems like it could be relevant in the context of that that changing pattern. Now at the same time we know that the idea that there's a single starting point and that there could be a forced choice of where you start is it's really a simplification for the purposes of tracking change over time in fact 81% of our respondents report that when they're looking for journal articles and monographs they often use a variety of different sources including the library and scholarly databases and mainstream search engines so forth and so I want to now complexify that that sort of forced choice that we've been tracking over time with a few different ways of thinking about discovery that we've begun to try to analyze with this with this cycle of the survey so we've split we've split discovery searching behaviors into both known items searching first and you can see the way that we've we've framed the strongly worded the question there excuse me as well as more exploratory search for new journal articles and monographs and you can see how we framed the question there and then we've offered a number of different choices whereby faculty members could respond that they are starting each of those two different types of search processes things like college or university library website or specific scholarly database or a general purpose search engine and so you can see in the in the in the graph here that the the difference between known item and exploratory searching forms an interesting pattern the green bar which are the known items are more likely to start faculty members respond that they're more likely to start at the library website somewhat less likely to start at a scholarly database whereas for more exploratory searching with the blue bar they're more likely to start at a scholarly database and less likely to start at the library website just one or two other things to point out on on that on that chart the the role of asking a colleague I'm going to come back to this in a moment a trivial share of respondents indicate that they ask a colleague for either one of those kinds of discovery behaviors and and similarly trivial share indicate that they ask a librarian indicating that to the extent that librarians would like to be in the mix of these kinds of discovery behaviors they probably will be more likely to take place in some of the whether through a library website or other kinds of of online or digital tools that may be made available now now we also are interested in what we've characterized here is keeping up with scholarship but what what we really mean there is current awareness and we have a whole lot of different things and I don't want to I want to really call your attention to two things when we ask about when we ask scholars how they keep up with current scholarship in their field the top two responses this responses at the highest share indicate are peer sources and you'll recall in the previous item that peer sources were fairly irrelevant to the way that we frame that question but for current awareness attending conferences or workshops and reading materials suggested by other scholars come out right at the top now they're not dramatically higher than skimming new issues of key journals and some other things but they're they're right up there at the top of the list of options that we made available I also want to point out one other thing on this on this list here which is that which is that following other researchers through blogs and social media I'm sorry I went too far ahead there following other researchers through blogs and social media comes out at the at the bottom of the list of choices that we offered so 12 percent of scholars report that that's a way that they keep up with the literature in their field and from a number of other questions that I I don't have slides on today but that we've looked at in the report we can see that scholars seem to be reporting the use of blogs and social media more as an author side tool than as a reader side tool and that's a little bit interesting in trying to think about whether blogs and social media are being used as much to workshop new ideas and new projects or in-process projects as they are as sources for for you know more canonical sources for the scholarly literature but certainly not at the top of the heap in terms of keeping up with scholarship now finally we asked scholars about how they feel about this mixture of different approaches and tools and databases that they use to find and access materials just about a quarter reported that they're very frustrated with this or they say it's very frustrating to this this this circumstance whether whether you'll see that as too high or comfortably low I'll leave you to interpret yourself but but it's about a quarter that report it's very frustrating now we also I just want to share one slide about access and this is about journals and books you routinely use and the story that I want to tell you here is about freely available materials because when we ask scholars what their sources are for journals and books they routinely use 78% indicated that their college or university libraries collections or subscriptions are are a key source but 65% indicated that materials that are freely available online are a key source and you can see several other sources that are also important to a notable share of faculty respondents now compare that with when we when we similarly asked faculty members what they think about material how they source material that is not available to them through their college or university library and we were curious you know do they use inter library lending what sorts of services or techniques do they use searching for freely available item online freely available version online is used by 86% of respondents library services like ILL 81% and and the list goes goes down goes down from there 50% just give up and look for something else these are faculty members and so so you can see a very interesting picture beginning to emerge about the growth of certain kinds of search techniques and clearly the importance we don't have trend line data here but the importance of a freely available material at least at least today or this academic year now dissemination is an area that we've been tracking in a certain ways for some time but we've added some additional views into how research is being disseminated by scholars and in the first place I'm going to share with you a slide about the audiences that scholars are trying to reach we asked about their subdiscipline other scholars in their discipline professionals outside of academia scholars outside their discipline the general public and undergraduate students and the audiences that scholars tell us they're trying to reach is overwhelmingly concentrated in their subdiscipline in their discipline more generally and especially with respect to the social scientists professionals in related fields outside of academia you can see that scholars outside their discipline the general public and undergraduate students are there's a smaller share of respondents not a trivial share but a smaller share trying to reach those those other audiences and the sciences fall notably lower on each of those three then than than the other disciplinary the other disciplinary groupings now now secondly we've we've been tracking for some time decisions about where to publish where to publish a journal article and I'm not going to show you the trend line data for this because it gets a little bit complicated there's so much going on but I do want to show you the ways in which the selection of a journal maps very nicely with the way that scholars report the sorts of audiences that they're trying to reach so you can see that the three the three characteristics of a journal that are most important to that are important to the highest share of respondents are close to my area of research high impact factor and circulated widely and well read by scholars in my field that's in the range of 75 to 80 percent of respondents reporting that those are important characteristics there are many other characteristics that they also report are important I'd like to draw your attention to the fourth one published for free at about 65 percent of respondents that's in other words free for me to publish in the journal as free for me as the author and then down second from the bottom the article is made freely available online at about 35 percent or about a third of respondents saying that that's a very important characteristic that's that's interesting not least in the sense that it doesn't map well to their behavior in in accessing materials that I showed you just a moment about where freely available materials online are clearly important to a much higher share of respondents now now we also have have looked at publishing services there's been so much talk about the value of publishers and the kinds of new publishing services that scholars might find interesting or that the community might find valuable and so we've added a couple of modules of questions about publishing services this module is about relatively traditional publisher services things like managing the peer review process and associating your work with a reputable brand that signals its quality or placing your article in a high visibility publication or channel and and our respondents about 60 percent plus or or or minus as high as 70 or 75 percent at the top report that these characters these these attributes of a publisher are important to them are very important to them and and and and I want to I want to just emphasize that it's about two thirds that that report that now by contrast when we ask a different question about the newer kinds of publishing services some of which might be offered by a publisher but others of which might be offered by a library or a society or or any number of other kinds of support providers things like managing my public web presence or helping me to assess the impact of my publication or determine where to publish to maximize my impact or or so forth we see a much lower share of respondents who say that these these types of support services are valuable to them so managing my public web presence there there are some disciplinary differences that I'll emphasize here managing my public web presence comes in at about 40 percent of respondents assessing and then helping me to the impact and then helping me determine where to publish is a little bit lower not least because scientists find those roles especially less valuable and then and then finally making a version of my research outputs freely available at services that many libraries run with an institutional repository and helping me understand and negotiate favorable favorable publication contracts are also you can see the disciplinary pattern on on the ladder of those so in general what I think we're seeing about the research dissemination patterns is a relatively and I say relatively traditional mindset in terms of in terms of who my audience is who my what the characteristics are that motivate me to choose a journal and then the kinds of services that I value in a publisher or the other kinds of support services that I value in the publication process as you've seen we don't have trend line data for several of these questions where it will be very interesting to see whether the trend line is up or down on them and we we just can't know but that's a snapshot of where things were earlier this academic year so so the role of the library is one that intersects with both both issues around discovery and access and of course thinking about new kinds of services not least some of those dissemination support services that that I was just referencing a moment ago and and I want to start here I'd like to start with a question that we've been sharing for a number of cycles of this project asking about the functions of your college and university or university library and an understanding how important they are to you the first three here are the original ones that we've been asking since 2003 and they're a little bit more collections oriented they're about discovery they're about preservation they're about they're about buying things and then the latter three we've been encouraged to add over the course of the last several cycles they're more services roles like facilitating faculty teaching or helping to support the research of faculty members or finally working with undergraduate students to help them with information literacy and research skills research skills needs and so here's the snapshot of how things looked earlier this academic year you can see that the buyer role continues to be in in first place eighty percent of our respondents think the role of the academic library in buying things for them or licensing things for them is is very important the gateway and repository roles are in a sort of second-place position and then the the services roles are a little bit lower than that but the information literacy item comes in at the highest of the three of the three services roles now I'd like to I'd like to provide a little bit more granularity on this because I believe there's a great deal of explanatory power in in this particular question module so here's how things have changed over the course of time tracking back to 2003 you can see that let me start with the gateway all the way on the left the gateway item has from 2003 to 2006 to 2009 been seemingly declining steadily and that that steady decline maps with if I can recall your attention to one of the discovery items to that steady decline in the perception that researchers are starting with their online library catalog and then just as with that item so here the gateway role has the decline in the gateway role has been interrupted and indeed modestly reversed that's that's a really interesting finding that once again seems like it could have something to do with some of the choices that libraries have been making in this area in in recent years now with the sole exception of the gateway role there are another four roles that we have been tracking at least since 2009 and you can see that those other four roles buyer repository teaching facilitator and research supporter have all declined in perceived importance by the respondents to our survey the information literacy item is new with this cycle so we we can't know what it's what its trend line may may look like but again the fact that all of the others have declined really sets the gateways modest increase in fairly stark relief there also are very powerful patterns by disciplinary grouping the buyer role is equally is seen as equally important is seen as important by equal shares of respondents in each of the three disciplinary groupings but with the sole exception of the buyer role the scientists are a dramatically lower share in most cases of scientists report viewing each of these library roles as very important compared with social scientists compared with humanists so that pattern of more humanists than social scientists and more scientific more social scientists than scientists is very very consistent with the exception of the buyer the buyer role here in 2010 in fall of 2010 we conducted a survey of library deans and directors on a number of issues one of which was this exact question and so right now I'd like to show you how faculty members from 2012 those are the blue bars compare with a national survey of library deans and directors those are the green bars you can see that for every role really with the exception of the buyer role our library deans and directors a higher share of them thought that was a very important role of the library as compared to the aggregate response level of faculty members but the differences are much starker clearly in the in the three roles on the bottom the three services roles on the bottom and in part because we knew that the library directors felt so strongly about these roles and especially about the information literacy role we wanted to dig in a little bit more deeply into perceptions about that particular role so so we gave a strongly worded statement my undergraduate students have poor skills relating to locating and evaluating scholarly information it 44% of our respondents agree strongly with with that statement again whether that's too high or too low I'll I'll leave to others to try to interpret but but they're but but we use that as the jumping off point to think about whose responsibility it is to develop those skills so this is too strongly worded statements that I'm going to show together developing the research skills is primarily the responsibility of and then we have my responsibility 42% believe that it's their responsibility and we offered in a separate item my academic library's responsibility and about a quarter agreed that it's their academic library responsibility so that wasn't a forced choice you could have answered both of those or of course neither of those and that was the pattern that was the pattern that emerged now finally in trying to understand the changing perceptions about the role of the academic library we have two very strongly worded statements that are a little bit there they're hard statements and I'll let you read them but they're both really about when content moves online what is your perception of the role of the librarian and I want to emphasize that the one is strictly about librarians and the others about buildings and staff but they're really about now that content is online how do the other things that the library do how important is are the other things that the library do the other things that the library does and and in both cases we had in the cases of both of those questions we see that it's it remains a decisive majority a decisive minority that agrees strongly that that the role librarians play is becoming less important or that that that universities should redirect the money they spend to other needs but you can see the trend line there has been steady over the course of three cycles of the survey now and and we're you know think that that's an important finding to call to attention now finally we've been focusing on format transitions in this this survey process for some number of its cycles and and and we'll I'll look quickly at journals but then I also want to show you what we found about monographs which is a new a relatively new area for us to look at here so with the journals format transition I'm going to start with a question that was really directed to to publishing and then a second one that's more directed to collecting the first one is I'm completely comfortable essentially with publishers ceasing to issue print versions at all just as long as they're available electronically the second one is I'm I'm if my library canceled the print version but continue to collect it electronically that would be fine with me so we we have both a publisher version and a library version with respect to the publisher version we have in 2012 the green bars 60% of scientists about 55% of social scientists and a full 40% of humanists agreeing strongly find to cease issuing print versions which has grown steadily from from 2009 with respect to library choices and this is a great example where we have data but not really a strong hypothesis you can see that while the pattern had been over time that libraries can cease collecting print versions from 2003 to 2006 to 2009 that trend has been arrested and indeed there's a modest fall off from from 2009 to 2012 in all three disciplinary groupings I don't have a great explanation of what that would be so that that's something that we're we're eager to discuss now thinking about backfiles we have a couple of strongly worded statements about backfiles as well I would be happy to see hard copy collections discarded and replaced entirely by electronic collections and then secondly it will always be crucial for some libraries to maintain hard copy collections so with respect to the first one I'd be happy to see collections discarded a pretty strong statement for for academic faculty members you can see that approximately 50% of scientists and social scientists agree strongly with that statement and the share of humanists that do so is now at about 30% so so we you know there certainly seems like a bit of a leveling off for the social sciences and the sciences and we may be hitting a plateau or not it's hard to tell and this is one of the reasons why we're interested in continuing to track change over the course of time with respect to whether some libraries should continue to maintain copies of print journals the backfile the hard copy collections we've seen again a steady decline over time that really hasn't declined from 2009 to 2012 not at all for social sciences and sciences and that also maps nicely with the last question that I showed you where there was that plateau in the increase and so and so it's it seems like at least over the past three years we haven't seen major change on on either of those two items now with respect to monographs monographs there's been so much activity in thinking about ebooks and scholarly monographs over the past over the past few years so we asked for the first time a very simple question how often have you used scholarly monographs in digital form in the past six months the share that reports that they do so either often or occasionally comes to 70% right on the nose 70% of respondents indicate that they've done so often or occasionally and and that's the the blue and the green slices of the pie there but we know that when you get a response like that there's something more complicated than they've just switched to ebooks altogether going on or at least we suspected that that might be the case so we introduced a question that was designed to explore different use cases for monographs and try to understand what the what which of them were seen as favoring print and which of them were seen as favoring digital and so the top two are about reading in depth the middle two comparing treatment between monographs and skimming monographs and then the bottom two are more exploratory or searching behaviors and we have a very interesting pattern that emerges the top two cover to cover or other kinds of in-depth reading decisive shares of our response of our respondents say that those use cases favor print over digital books right now for them and then on the bottom two use cases the more exploratory or search like behaviors again decisive shares of our respondents have said that that digital forms that they favor digital forms over print for those types of use cases and then the middle two are somewhere in somewhere in the middle so it seems as though it seems as though there's a real pattern emerging whereby at least today and not to say what will happen in the future but at least today we may be in a bit of a middle state where there are different there clearly are different use cases and different use cases that favor different formats one question about monographs that we have been tracking over time is this one this is this will strike many of you I think as a very strongly worded statement within the next five years the use of e-books will be so prevalent among faculty and students that it will not be necessary to maintain library collections of hard copy books and in 2006 and 2009 it tracked at plus or minus four percentage points a trivial share of our respondents agreed strongly with that statement a share that has essentially quadrupled since then to 16 percent agreeing strongly with that statement still of course a tiny share of respondents agreeing strongly with it but the beginnings of what appears to be a trend line and of course if some of those in-depth reading behaviors were addressed with e-books to the satisfaction of our respondents would be interesting to see how this trend line would advance if at all so that is a very brief overview of some of the key findings that we have to share from the national the random national sample of US of US academics I want to take a minute to acknowledge my co-authors on the project Ross house right who's here and Kate Wolfson who who who both made substantial contributions to this very complicated effort the report itself will be available on Monday at this URL and we look forward to engaging with all of you in a variety of ways about what what all this means so let me turn it back to Diana now thank you thanks Roger I'm sure each of you as you looked at these survey results looked at those questions that were particularly interesting to you and I think we each will look at these survey results through our own lenses and it won't surprise you that I looked at this result through the eyes of a librarian and there are four four topics that I just want to raise with you and I hope to have continuing conversations with many of you about this over time seems to me there's some some very good news in this survey good news for libraries and good news for publishers specifically on the topic of discovery it seems good news from the library's perspective that the investment in discovery tools that we've made appears to be paying off I underscore that it's much too early to call this a trend we don't really know that it's a trend but but it is interesting to look at the data and see that this is probably going on the use of the library's website is coming at the expense of specialized databases and we can expect vendors to be highly competitive in trying to regain the starting point status that they've had in the past so I I expect a lot of activity will be taking place in this arena over the next few years but really looking forward to the next survey to see if this continues on the second piece of good news I think is for the academic publisher faculty continue to have high regard for the traditional functions of the academic publisher and they show no indication of abandoning traditional publishers as the disseminators of their work and that was I thought that was a very interesting trend in light of everything else that's going on the the second issue that I've listed here is just a question I I'm really puzzled by the response to the questions about freely accessible materials even though the buyer role is the library role most valued by faculty the number of faculty who report looking for freely accessible resources on the web when they need them I think is is just puzzling they say that they find much of what they want on freely accessible resources and I'm wondering if that's because they are seeing resources that are made available by the library and they just don't understand that they're being made available by the library or are they are they really saying that faculty are now so prolific in posting their materials on the web that they can go to the web and find what they want that seems unlikely to me so I'm you know that's something I just want to dig into more deeply and find out what's really going on there and the final piece is I think a bit of bad news I see clear warning signs for librarians as they think about new services librarians often talk about moving from a collections focus to a services focus and I suspect that many of the services that have been developed or aimed at undergraduates and it that may be the reason that faculty are not perceiving the value of these new services the faculty still show a very strong appreciation for the collections role and I think if librarians want to be appreciated for these new services they have a lot of work to do so those are just a few observations I thought I would share but I'm really interested in hearing from all of you later about what what you thought was most important about these results and the other part we want to share with you this afternoon is a little bit of information from one institutions faculty survey we have we think that the national survey is is a powerful tool in tracking trends over time looking at behaviors and practices but we've always been keenly aware that institutional differences are definitely there and these national trends may in fact mask some of the institutional differences so we're really grateful to 11 partners who worked with us this year to develop the institutional survey and it gives us a chance to see what's really going on on different campuses and then begin to understand what happens on that campus to cause these differences I think those will be particularly rich discussions to have in the future as Cliff mentioned in the beginning Judy Russell has has been such a great asset she has worked with us on the advisory committee she has run this survey on her campus and we're pleased that she's here to talk about the very first look at her of her findings at the University of Florida Judy take a moment here to close one presentation and open another so hopefully so as Deanna indicated when the folks at Ithaca indicated that they were interested in piloting having local surveys done I was very quick to say that I was very interested in doing that I've followed the results of the national survey with interest since its inception and I agree it it challenges us in lots of ways and it's very interesting to see the trends over time but having the opportunity to do it as a the same questions as a local survey and to try to understand how the views of our faculty compare with those national views I think is going to be extremely helpful to us it will let us I think engage in a much more specific dialogue about our strategic directions with our campus when we can talk with them about these national trends but also what we see as their responses we just completed the survey in mid-March and the folks at Ithaca rushed to get us some early results so what you're seeing is very preliminary data which is a little tantalizing because we haven't had time to really dig down in it very much yet and we certainly haven't had a chance to separate it out by discipline and and really look at that very closely but I think you'll find it interesting and it certainly is already starting us thinking about what we want to do with the data and comparison to the national data what I've chosen to share with you today because it was kind of what we found most interesting most quickly in the data is areas where you have differed significantly from the national data so what you'll see I think are some things that will maybe you'll join with me in speculating about why we're seeing different things but so for the Ithaca survey you heard Roger say that they had specifically excluded agriculture and health in their survey sample over all of this period of time for UF agriculture and health are huge portions of our campus you can see here they're 73% of our funded research it's a significant portion of our faculty and our students so we did decide to include them in our survey and that's clearly going to cause us to have somewhat different results the Ithaca response rate was about three and a half percent with 33% of it from the sciences our response rate was 5.46 so 5.4 5.5% but we had 56% of our respondents from the sciences so again you're going to see some skewing I think by when you do the comparison because we have such a heavy response from the sciences and I've followed some of these same questions that you've just done with Roger so you'll kind of see how those play out so for known item searches UF is different than the national in some pretty significant ways so where nationally 41% we're beginning with the library website for us 46% begin with a specific scholarly database so it's flipped for us our people are starting in scholarly databases rather than in the library website be interesting as we dig deeper to find out about that for the new item searches we're roughly comparable on the percentage that uses the library website but significantly higher on those who use the specific scholarly database so Diana was talking about the usage of those general search engines so apparently our people are using the general search engines less and coming to specific databases that are known to them scholarly databases to begin their research some this is I think one of the most interesting questions so of the respondents who strongly agreed the statement about the next five years ebooks will be so prevalent that will not be necessary to maintain library book collections nationally 16% in the research level one institutions which includes uf the national results it dropped to 12% but then for uf it went up to 22% so there's a stronger than the national average statement about a diminishing need for library book collections at uf then in its peer research institutions and one of the things we'll be doing with this data is looking at our results against the r1 institutions as well as against the national data because it'll be interesting to see whether some of the differences are more between national data and r1 data or whether they are significant even within the r1 class the issue about respondents not caring of print journals are canceled 68% of the national group 70% of the r1 78% at uf so another place where there's a distinct difference in our response to that particular question similarly we have sort of a tiered approach on this one about comfortable with journal ceasing to print 53% nationally 56% in r1 69% at uf again a significant difference that we're seeing in our population that will I think lead to some interesting dialogue on campus but also some interesting excavation of the data to see if we can try to determine why that's occurring the question about electronic monographs being very important in research and teaching 54% overall 57% r1 60% for uf so we're higher but not as dramatically higher as we've been on a couple of those other questions and for the question about and this was one that Roger didn't use in his examples but one that we found particularly interesting so I'm sharing it with you 3 to 4% of the respondents overall reported replacing in-person laboratory exercises with digital simulations and 5% in the r1 group 25% of our respondents indicated that they're replacing in-person laboratory exercises with digital simulations so something different is happening on our campus clearly and again it's something where we've seen enough to be tantalized and not enough to have a conclusion but obviously it's it's an area that will lead us to to look at it and then on the primary responsibility of the library and I have used these last two questions that that Roger did use as well so we're 56% of the national respondents say that the library's primary responsibility is research and teaching 66% in the r1 so it is higher in the r1s but 78% at the University of Florida now we did also see that we had a higher percentage of faculty who teach at the graduate level respond to our survey and that may be part of what's reflected in this particular response but again something that will bear some further investigation and then on the question about the responsibility of the library for undergraduate student student learning our response is lower so it was 55% nationally it dropped to 40 for the r1s and for us it's still lower at 37 so you can see that there will be I think significant value as always to taking this national data and really studying it and really examining it but it will be I think very much informed by our ability to use this same data and compare ourselves to the r1 group and to know specifically what's happening on our own campus so I think this has been a really interesting opportunity it's I think fulfilled more than even my expectations about what it would bring to us as an institution in terms of how we work with our faculty on our strategic planning and I'm really hopeful that we will now be able to continue to do this in a future year so that we'll begin to see the trends and see whether our faculty are moving closer to the norms over time or whether they're continuing to stretch out so stay tuned in a couple of years well maybe the three of us will be back and we'll be giving you a reprise but I think we'll publish more information about this when we've had time to dig into it and share it so you'll see some additional results and I think it will probably help Ithaca as they begin to get the results from these other institutions as well we're particularly interested in comparing with Texas A&M and Illinois because they are also our ones and so it'll give us a good idea of are they seeing differences in their local results as well so with that I'll turn it back over I guess to the to Diana she'll help us with the Q&A's. Thank you let me first thank Roger and Judy for their very interesting presentations they've gone through a lot of data and I we've tried hard to present these data visually so that you can get quick glimpses but we hope you will read the report thoroughly on Monday and and then let us know more. At this time we invite you to ask questions or make comments anything you'd like to raise with us we'll just sit here and the questions can be addressed to any any one of us. I wonder when the report is released on Monday appreciate you may not be able to present this now will there be something that gives us some idea of what the the confidence intervals are around those percentages you expressed I'm concerned that for instance in the presentation of Florida it's difficult simply seeing percentage A compared with percentage B to know at this stage whether we're seeing a real difference or just an apparent one that isn't actually statistically significant. It's a good question Kevin the the the plan is in the report itself it will have it'll have graphs that look substantially similar to the ones here but we can certainly say a lot more about about those issues and I'd be happy to share some more some more information about that sort of thing. Okay thank you. David. It may be influenced by me being at Stanford but I'm particularly interested in the differences that Florida's seen because I think a lot of them are due to their inclusion of the health sciences. Our subjective impression at Stanford is that the health sciences have a strong bias to technological optimism and I think that's showing in a lot of their risk the in what I'm guessing are their influence on those results and so I think that although there are going to be some issues around I have the same concerns that Kevin does about the small sample size I think they're going to be some very interesting results out of when there's if you can break out the health sciences from the sciences in general and I think that is very much our expectation that we're going to separate out health and agriculture we actually had the highest response rate from any single college was from the College of Agriculture so it may really in our case be agriculture just simply because they were more responsive to the survey but I agree with you that we're going to want to be able to separate the agriculture and health sciences from the other sciences so we can compare to the normalized data across the rest of the survey more effectively and you'll see that I think as we release more of our data. Is there just general CNI fatigue at this moment there's another question. Would you come to the microphone Howard. That's an easy answer also. We've been for the National Survey we've been depositing the data set with ICPSR for for access and preservation purposes and we're in the process of cleaning cleaning it up for that submission right now so we hope it will be available shortly through through ICPSR. And we would be interested too in hearing of if if you do analysis of the data we would love hearing from you about what you did and what you found that would be extremely useful. I have a question about your future plans. Do you have any plans to assess other groups in the academy such as undergraduates and the reason I asked this is some preliminary studies on their likeability for or use of ebooks. It was provoked by the the graph that you showed about how print versus e is being used and so you can one could argue that faculty know how to look for sources and citations and things inside an electronic environment but undergraduates may not know that yet. Right. Well you'll you'll be interested to know that I'm carrying in my brief case of a rather compelling argument from my colleague here that we should be doing a survey of undergraduates as well. And so we're we're really looking into what we can do. We we're beginning to see a kind of cycle where we have a faculty survey one year of a survey of deans and directors of libraries the second year and a survey of students the third year if if we can manage all of that. We we hope to but I I can't say definitively yet. We're still looking at it but I think we would see very interesting results. Tom Leonard from Berkeley at the University of California the system we spent a lot of time assuring faculty that although we would be removing for example print journals from the local shelves we were keeping a repository copy or even more recently maybe out of state in a you know consortium like West. So knowing that I would have had trouble answering the questions that talked about discarding or getting rid of or I think discarding was the word in the survey. If they knew we were keeping a print copy they might agree to the local copy being given out. On the other hand some people are more radical I suppose and they wouldn't care if there was a paper copy available anywhere within our clutches. It's a great it's a great question and we've been I only reported in the presentation today a few of the questions that are on that on that topic but there are a few more in the full report and and you know overall what we're what we're looking at really is just their attitudinal reactions there are almost emotional reactions to the possibility of different scenarios so that hopefully each of those scenarios can can help you triangulate what what might make most sense for your for your institution or your consortial dynamics. While we're waiting to see if someone else has a question I'll make a comment to Deanna because I too have interested in the idea of a student survey but I would encourage you not to limit it just to undergraduates because I think it would be very interesting to see the difference as they progress through their academic career between the undergraduates and the graduates who then ultimately become faculty so I would encourage you to to think about that full strata. Good point thanks. All right all right thank you. As they said the whole data set is going to be available and I think you got some sense from you know just what Judy was sampling through of a few extracts how much is going to be in there to look at for example you know how different are the R ones than the aggregate and so I think you've given us a very rich resource to learn from over the coming months and years. Please join me in thanking our closing plenary team again for giving us this this preview of the report. It's really been very helpful and it's very provocative to see these trend lines. Lots to think about here. Thank you again and with that we're adjourned. I wish you safe travels. I look forward to seeing many of you in the coming months and lots and lots of you in December. Thank you for joining us.