Purpose & Goals

In 2017 and 2023, the University of Maryland (UMD) Libraries conducted the LibQual+ Lite survey, created by the Association of Research Libraries. We are comparing quantitative and qualitative results from both years to determine if and how users’ perceptions of the UMD Libraries differed between these two years. Although the broad, closed-ended survey questions do not reveal nuanced details of perceptions of the Libraries, the survey includes an opportunity for respondents to write an open-ended comment. This comment section allows respondents to discuss specific services, collections, personnel, and other aspects of our operations. By analyzing and coding the comments from both surveys, we can determine how the Libraries are performing in several areas and how the perceptions of specific operations have changed since 2017. The analysis of comments can also help us to better understand the quantitative data from the closed-ended questions that are categorized into the three LibQUAL areas of Affect of Service, Information Control, and Library as Place. Because the 2023 survey occurred three years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, it may reveal users’ perceptions that relate to operations that have changed due to the pandemic. Because the 2017 survey occurred before the pandemic, it will demonstrate the state of library user attitudes prior to the onset of COVID-19. By assessing data from the 2017 and 2023 surveys, we can examine whether we improved our operations based on the 2017 survey results and how we can improve our operations based on both sets of survey results. We may also identify areas where we need further research to determine specific ways to improve library user experience.

Design & Methodology

We conducted a literature review of how other library workers have analyzed their LibQUAL survey data, focusing on how they coded and interpreted the comments from their LibQUAL surveys. We used this literature review and our data to create a codebook and decide on NVivo as our software tool for qualitative analysis. To analyze the qualitative portion of both surveys, we initially coded each respondent comment into one or more of eight categories to determine the topic(s). After this process, we expanded our codebook for more granularity in preparation for our second and final process of coding in NVivo. Currently, we are categorizing comments into nine broad categories with nested sub-categories. The top-level categories are collections, communications/outreach, facilities, library locations, online content, personnel, services, general, and the LibQUAL survey. We are also coding the positive, negative, and neutral attitudes of each comment as well as coding any action items. After coding each comment, we will be able to analyze overall user perceptions in 2017 and 2023 as well as perceptions within each of the five user categories: undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, library staff, and campus staff. This way, we can see how the importance and perception of specific Libraries’ operations has changed or remained the same during the two years as well as across our different user groups. We can use this qualitative analysis in conjunction with the quantitative analysis provided by the Association of Research Libraries to measure perceptions.

Findings

Our quantitative ratings for Affect of Service improved significantly in 2023 from 2017. Meanwhile, the ratings for Information Control and Library as Place were almost identical in 2017 and 2023. In 2023, respondents were more likely to report that their interactions with employees and that access to special collections and archives exceeded expectations. They were also more likely to report that website navigation and access to materials did not meet minimum desired expectations. In 2017, faculty and staff were more likely than students to report operations that either exceeded expectations or did not meet minimum desired expectations. These groups reported that community space and their interactions with employees exceeded expectations. They also reported that website navigation, discovery of information, and access to materials did not meet minimum desired expectations. As of submission date, we are continuing the analysis of our 2023 survey’s 792 comments and our 2017 survey’s 1703 comments. However, the quantitative findings align with the comments that we have already coded. In the 2023 survey, positive comments in the Collections, Personnel, Services, and General categories outnumber negative comments in these four categories. However, negative comments in the Website, Discovery, Communications, and Facilities categories outnumber positive comments.

Action & Impact

The findings provide feedback and recommendations in all three LibQUAL categories of Affect of Service, Information Control, and Library as Place. The findings are being used for campus reporting and strategic planning and to demonstrate our perceived value on campus. The Libraries Dean/leadership team presented the findings to our Provost and other campus leaders at a summer 2023 retreat. One outcome was an immediate transfusion into our collections budget as well as progress on facilities upgrades, including approval to start renovating our student study rooms and the approval to purchase $500,000 in new furniture/furnishings this year. By focusing on further analysis of the comments, we will obtain specific, actionable information that we can use to improve the UMD Libraries. When the quantitative and qualitative responses are too broad, they will provide us with new ideas for research studies that can help us find specific recommendations for certain aspects of the Libraries.

Practical Implications & Value

The findings can aid other academic libraries in better understanding and serving their patrons in our post-COVID environment. We are using these findings to assess our performance before and after the COVID pandemic, to develop action items to address concerns, to reward/recognize employees/units that receive positive feedback, and to assist with library planning and prioritizing activities. For the qualitative comments, we are coding those we deem as immediately actionable. As a large public land-grant research university, we hope that our findings will be generalizable to other similar libraries. Our research methodology for coding the comments can be repeated by other libraries who want to analyze and take action on their LibQUAL survey comments or other qualitative data sets. Learning about our efforts to maximize the value of responses to our LibQual survey may inspire employees at other libraries who are looking to examine their survey responses. They can build on our experiences to find ways to use their qualitative and quantitative data to better meet the needs of their users.