This text reports on a set of focus group interviews facilitated by the Digital Access and Information Architecture Department at the University Libraries of Notre Dame. The intent of the interviews was to determine what problems students, faculty, and staff of the University have accessing digital information. The Department conducted the interviews to help it prioritize its activities in order to provide enhanced digital library services and collections.
The mission of the Digital Access and Information Architecture Department (DAIAD) is to enhance the usability of digital library services and collections by exploring, creating, maintaining, and improving frameworks for the University of Notre Dame community. In order to know where the Department should be spending its efforts enhancing usability, the Department first needed to know what problems need to be addressed, and why.
During the month of February, 2002 the Department facilitated a set of nine focus group interviews. The purpose of the interviews was to ascertain how the Libraries could improve access to digital library services and collections. The input of about seventy people was captured through tape recordings and note taking. Through this process the Department was able to get direct feedback from library users and learn about their thoughts and feelings regarding access to digital information.
The thoughts and feelings of the focus group interview participants were summarized into three categories:
Based on this feedback, as well as the feedback gathered from an informal but extensive internal Libraries needs assessment, the Department recommends the following things become action items:
The balance of the report is divided into the following sections. First, there is a description of the focus group interview process in general. Following that we describe how the Department conducted the focus groups. Third, we outline what we heard from the focus group participants. Finally, we outline the steps the Department plans to implement in order to satisfy the needs and desires articulated by our populations.
Focus group interviewing is a way to gather information about the thoughts, attitudes and perceptions of a group of people on an issue, product, program or service. Other information gathering techniques include surveys and questionnaires. Focus groups usually consist of small groups of people led by a moderator who guides the group through a discussion of a number of questions designed to gather information on a topic of interest to those conducting the interviews.
Focus groups can be a low cost alternative to other information gathering techniques and can provide rapid results. The focus group setting can allow for exploration of the reasons behind people's answers, and can raise unanticipated yet relevant issues. The group environment and discussion process can stimulate the thinking of individuals in the group and bring out ideas that wouldn't have occurred to them in isolation. The relaxed atmosphere and longer period of time than is typically available for other information gathering techniques can allow for more in depth responses. On the other hand, focus groups may be subject to facilitator bias or to domination by a vocal participant.
Care should be taken in interpreting the results of focus group interviews. Normally focus groups do not represent a statistically valid sample (they are typically unrepresentative and too small), therefore, if at all possible, focus group results should be supplemented with and validated by other information gathering techniques.
The optimal size for a focus group is thought to be between six and twelve people. Too small a group limits the interaction, while too large a group makes it difficult for all to participate. It is better to have homogenous groups if possible, to set the group at ease and promote freer discussion. The moderator should be a professional facilitator if at all possible. If the moderator is someone from the organization conducting the focus groups, facilitation skills may be lacking, bias may be introduced, and the group's answers may be affected. It is thought best to conduct many interviews to get a broader range of input.
The number of questions used should be small, normally from four to six. Focus group interviews typically begin with an introduction to the topic, setting the time limit and ground rules, and having the participants introduce themselves. The first question or two should be general in order to set the group at ease and get them thinking on the topic. Subsequent questions should zero in on the key questions on which input is desired. The interview may end with the moderator summarizing the discussion, asking for any final thoughts and thanking the participants. A small honorarium to compensate individuals for their time and input can help build good will and be an inducement to participate in the interview.
If possible, the discussion should be taped. Transcriptions of the tapes can be useful for analysis. Having someone other than the moderator record the ideas on a flip chart can be a useful additional way to capture the discussion.
It is helpful for the moderator and others involved in conducting the focus group interviews to meet as soon as possible after the interviews to discuss the interviews, and to share impressions. Notes should be taken at the debriefings, with the goal of identifying key findings identified in the interviews and interpreting them. Analysis of the results typically begins by reviewing all available transcripts, tapes, and notes. If possible, as many of those involved in conducting the interviews should participate in the analysis. After reviewing the data, key findings should be identified, and conclusions and action items developed. A report incorporating the results should be prepared and submitted to the organization sponsoring the focus groups.
The focus group interview process began by gathering names of possible participants. The Department asked subject librarians and liaisons to supply names and email addresses of people they thought would be interested in participating. The Department collected over 500 names. These names were put into a database and then an email was sent out to them asking them whether or not they would like to attend.
Additional methods were used to inform student, faculty, and staff of the focus group interviews and promote participation.
As an incentive, food was provided during the interviews. Catering by Design (a catering service on campus) was contracted to provide this service. Each participant also received a $10 gift certificate to the Notre Dame bookstores. An extra $5 was given to people who responded because of the newspaper ad, but there were only three of those people.
All of the promotional items pointed people to a Web page where people could register to participate in one of the focus groups. The page asked the participants for their first and last name, email address, status (faculty, undergraduate student, graduate student, staff, or other), department, and the days and times they would be available to attend. See Figure #1.
When the form was submitted its content was imported into a database. The database was then used to schedule persons who had responded. We attempted to form homogeneous groups by grouping people with similar statuses and departmental affiliations whenever possible. The Department received ninety-three (93) responses, including some from people unable to participate who submitted comments. Of those wishing to participate, the Department was able to accommodate the schedules of seventy-nine (79) people, grouped into nine (9) sessions. See Figure #2 for an illustration of the scheduler system.
The next step was to decide where to have the interviews. All but one of the interviews was held in the LaFortune Center. The accommodations were intimate enough to promote comfortable conversations, and central enough to be convenient for most people. The other interview was held in the Hesburgh Library. After the dates and times were scheduled, emails were sent out letting people know when they were scheduled to attend.
A majority of the focus group participants scheduled to attend the interviews classified themselves as faculty or graduate students. See Figure #3.
Figure #3 - Participants' statuses
A majority of the participants where from the College of Arts & Letters or the sciences. See Figure #4.
Figure #4 - Participants' colleges/departments
Genelle King, of King Communications, moderated the interviews. Prior to the interviews Ms. King was given a half-day orientation to the libraries. In addition, she gave a presentation to interested library faculty and staff about the focus group interview process, and helped the Department draft the questions to be used in the focus group interviews. These questions included:
During the interviews an audio tape recorder was used to record the discussions. The tapes were later transcribed by Lori S. Wuthrich, a local transcriptionist. Department members found it very helpful to have the transcriptions available while listening to the tapes. The nine focus groups yielded about fourteen (14) hours of discussion. The transcriptions as well as concordances are available at the following URL:
http://dewey.library.nd.edu/focusgroup/concordances/
About a week after the interviews were finished, Ms. King re-visited the Libraries and gave a presentation to library faculty and staff on what she had heard in the focus group interviews. In addition, she submitted a written report, available in Appendix A.
In general, focus group comments fell into three themes:
Each of these themes have sub-themes, outlined in the next sections.
This was the most commonly expressed problem, which manifested itself in two ways. First, there are too many choices on our website:
It might be lots of good stuff out there, but because it's so hard to find, you never bother to look for it.... I mean is there very usable resource that the Notre Dame library has a subscription to that you don't know that it exists.
I just can't find it because the website has so many [things], that I just can't figure out where I'm supposed to be.
I guess I find the interface somewhat frustrating in the sense that I'm not a frequent enough user of it, so every time I come back I feel like I'm starting anew and often think I have something easy to find and I spend 20 minutes to find it. I guess you could chalk it up to the user not putting in enough effort, but I would say that I don't think that's the user's fault. I think that's the design's fault.
It would take a lot of work, but I know that trying to navigate even the library website is just a nightmare, trying to figure out where information is going to be that I need. [2-9]
I remember going...where is it...where is it...calling, I guess the library, and trying...but, it felt like I was going through a maze as opposed to...why isn't it just here? [4-5]
You've got to know how to do it in this library and you get the help page and you go through it and I'm not stupid, you know...but, I just can't figure it out. [4-10]
There's just so much there. I think every time you click on something, you're given 20 more choices and I don't feel like I know where to go. [6-11]
Second, once users did identify items they thought were relevant for searching, they found the interface too difficult to use:
...I want a single search to look at all the information as opposed to having to know that I need to go to a certain index and search for this type of information.... I don't have to know whether it's in biological abstracts or whether it's an online journal that we hold or, it would just go find it for me in whatever place it happened to be. [1-7]
I would say, just to go back to our initial question, my wish would be that the interface of the library's resources would look like Google, and it would operate that simply. [1-16]
Simplicity of entering searches....Yeah, not having to worry too much about how many quotation marks or 'ands' or 'ors' you're putting and, you know, then not having to look through all the false...false leads. [4-4]
...if you go through the key word all sorts of very strange things happen. [2-2]
It would be nice to be able to, you know, really easily have an interface that didn't require training and that was intuitive... [3-14]
I've been really confused every time I've tried to do research because I can never find what I'm looking for. It's like, I've never written a research paper that I found all of the information on my own. [6-6]
I know they've been working hard to improve it, but it still isn't there yet. There are some things that are annoying, like you have to put in too many keystrokes and when you click on a topic, it goes to a new screen, rather than coming up in a window. Then, when you go back, you've lost your data and I think that. [8-9]
Once a particular item has been identified as something a user would like to read it, is very inconvenient to actually get the item. Similarly, users like the ability to quickly review a text for relevance, and if the item is deemed appropriate, then they will want to print the item:
Recently, it really frustrates me a lot if like I go to search for an article and it's only an abstract and I have to go find the actual articles...so, I really prefer it if, like that search engine that she said...that Deanna said, that you can just get the whole article. I mean, like if I...I'll only try to...I'll only get an article where I actually have to physically find it in a magazine if it's like absolutely imperative to whatever I'm doing. Otherwise, I would probably just forget the whole thing if all if found was an abstract online. [6-5]
I'm doing research on a paper. I'm finding references that are useful to me. When I find the ones that are useful to me, I hit print. What's another way to work? I have some kind of database that I'm (unclear) for myself with the references with my notes, and anytime I want to see that paper again, I go back and click on that button to take me back to that reference. I don't print it. .... You could call it your portal. You would have like a library portal where you could log into the library and you would have a set of your references that you had said, keep in my records list (simultaneous speaking)....If I had that, I wouldn't print. Without that, I'm always going to print.
There should not be a dichotomy between paper and electronic. They're both extraordinarily valuable to us.
I just habitually [print it out], if it's something I really want, because I just don't trust the resource duration. [4]
I like being able to sit at my desk and get information instead of having to go somewhere for it [1-2]
But, I have the distinct advantage of having a library in our department, [life sciences].... Which is extremely convenient, unfortunately, since we only have space for 7 or 8 years worth of stuff, then I'm also everyplace else on the campus checking things as well. [1-3]
...allow me to hit one button to get a book sent to me via document delivery service... is some way of interfacing the bibliographic search engines with interlibrary loan request forms, because... I don't have to manual paste onto the form. [4-13]
...you get deft at this and you just do the best you can, but you realize students will give up after a first try and the library's use this if they can't get what they want... I think what is frustrating also is in the program is being able actually to get the actual books from the library. You are much likely to get them in the bookstore [4-15]
I'm always crunched for time, as everybody is, and I'm designing my class and using the web extensively to figure out what papers to put in the reading packet for these graduate students and if I had trouble finding it in the library and if I couldn't go get it immediately, it didn't end up on the reading list. [8-11]
People are concerned about our holdings and whether or not they will have access to materials now or in the future:
What about if the university cancels its subscription and we print, you know basically if we have a run for 20 years, we still got the run for 20 years? If we decide to get a budget cut and cancel that, do we lose how we paid an enormous amount of money? Do we lose all of that access to all of the stuff that we've already paid for? No answer. [1-9]
...what's important to me from the library is that we actually have the access to those online journals and that we do...I mean, so what's extremely important to me is that the library pays for the subscription to MathSci Net. [3-8]
I really think that the library must make sure that they get the right things now so in 50 years ... we have the right materials on hand...and I think really the traditional use of the library is information, so. [3-13]
I have need of access remotely to electronic databases on campus...it's not just the Mac problem...the fact that I cannot access certain electronic databases in my own physically on campus. [4-12]
I think what is frustrating also is in the program is being able actually to get the actual books from the library. You are much likely to get them in the bookstore. [4-15]
I'm frustrated if we have it online, but we don't actually have it in house as far as for those back issues. [5-9]
Recently, it really frustrates me a lot if like I go to search for an article and it's only an abstract and I have to go find the actual articles...so, I really prefer it if, like that search engine that she said...that Deanna said, that you can just get the whole article. I mean, like if I...I'll only try to...I'll only get an article where I actually have to physically find it in a magazine if it's like absolutely imperative to whatever I'm doing. Otherwise, I would probably just forget the whole thing if all if found was an abstract online. [6-5]
And my complaint is that the representation of electronic journals is not extensive enough and it doesn't go back far enough. A lot of these licenses have only been taken up in the last year or two, and yet all other places in the world that you go under universities (inaudible), you can get all the way back to whatever the journal's providing. [8-11]
I'm a text scholar.... I much rather prefer having the document. [9-5]
Similarly, people desire some sort of document delivery service:
...allow me to hit one button to get a book sent to me via document delivery service... is some way of interfacing the bibliographic search engines with interlibrary loan request forms, because... I don't have to manual paste onto the form. [4-13]
"It [the current service] takes you five minutes to get to the point where you're asking for the book." (#4)
They've got ---- in there now from the law school who was supposed to be chasing stuff down.... He was actually the excellent person who emailed me about something I requested from document delivery saying that they were putting it into library loan. [8-13]
"... you could actually request that they put books on the van for the next run through and so you could get it within the next day..." (#4)
"... I too come from a university back home where we had a network of ... linked libraries and one of the advantages ... is how ... with what rapidity you could get books without having to wait the, you know, two to six weeks that ILL takes." (#4)
"if I'm at catholic or GW (?), their catalog automatically includes six universities and they'll list all the books and tell you what university it's at and they'll get you the text quickly ... to you," (#9)
"That's the biggest issue, because if the university is part of a consortium, you could ... a lot of places, as it happens ... if you're a member of the consortium ... type in the book, it says ... we don't own it, click here and we will send it to you and they can get it in two days."
The third major theme dealt with communication issues. For example, many people believed the libraries should make efforts to provide guidance on what resources to use, or they believe more interaction should take place between librarians and students/faculty/staff in order to create sets of valuable information resources:
Well they might be able to consult with the faculties in those areas and see what kinds of sites are appropriate. I would think once that list is established, it wouldn't be all that difficult to update it once a month. [2-8]
Hopefully, the librarians are not doing this in a vacuum.... If we put these databases together, is valuable information out there; hopefully they're working with people that are actually going to be working with those databases. [1-12]
Okay, that's the beauty that the library can do, because Google basically and all the other searchers are really. They just look to see what web information is out, regardless of source. Whereas, the library ought to be able to decide which web sources have some veracity to 'em and to restrict their searches for that. If they would do that, that would be an enormous contribution [1-11]
...a lot of them really need serious guidance on how to interpret and evaluate resources on the web.... When it comes to my own evaluating of what comes off the web, I'm often looking at... to where the information is coming from, like institutional affiliation for example, who may have authored that particular article, created the web page... that kind of thing... we had to say back up...wait a minute... all the glitters is not gold... all these looks spiffy, aren't' necessarily reliable. [4-8]
I think we should go back to Kevin's original suggestion that the library should provide an entrée into a lot of sources, but they should be scholarly sources as opposed to anybody's personal things. The concept that you should be able to go to the library and get a scholarly search of what's available and then students can see the difference between that and what they get through general web searching. That would really be an extraordinarily useful thing. (#1)
One thing I would like to see, especially for the Humanities in Literature, is I'd like to see a list of websites that are both authoritative, accurate, etc. that relate to the professions. In other words, that wonderful article in the Observer that came out a couple of years ago, I thought that was a terrific introduction.
A subject guide kind of web site would be a great idea
When people had interactions with specific librarians, they were positive interactions. Nobody had negative things to say about individuals. At the same time, people said that once they were able to identify an individual, tasks were much easier accomplish:
"It's very easy for me to overlook the library because I can do my day-to-day stuff without (unclear) to it, and so now the conversation has made me wonder what I'm missing. The library hasn't reached out to me in any meaningful way to say welcome here. Here are some things that we have that might be interesting to you."
"... if I can't find something and I'm really frustrated and just up against the wall, I simply call the reference desk in the library." (#4)
"there's a huge bottle neck between what the departments do and what the librarians are doing unless you have a really good librarian who's already proactive in coming up to the department, and I think it's 'cause they're overworked. They're incredibly understaffed"
Our librarian whose, you know, I would nominate her for sainthood if I could, gets me out of trouble all the time finding obscure things that the names have changed, and what have you. And having that staff that really knows the subject area that you work with on a daily basis, in my view, is just extraordinarily valuable asset for us. [1-3]
And I also should tell you that I don't know what the search engines are, but through our librarian, when I give up and cannot find an answer to something, and I pride myself on being good at this.... And I turn it over to her, and she always finds it and I don't know what she uses, but whatever those resources are, they're amazing. [1-4]
I mean that's the kind of service that really is above and beyond the call of duty actually, but the librarians around here, once they get interested in a project, they sort of seem to be willing to go the extra mile, so I've been very pleased with these... It has gotten steadily better during my time at Notre Dame, due largely to an increased professionalization of the staff. It is still too small a staff for a university of this size [1-7]
Right now, I think there's a tremendous dichotomy, library librarians are over there, working their work over here, and occasionally we use them when we stumble across something. [1-15]
But you're talking about a fairly large amount of liaison activity that means an ambassador of every department. The logistics of that are a little intimidating, but this is all the wish list. And, the goal is to increase the relevance of the library and maintain a central position on campus, so good sound and good motivation for doing that. [2-8]
I've always found that they did the best they could.... You don't know who else to call. It's very bureaucratized over there. If you look in the phone book, there must be 80 entries for the library. [4-6]
I mean the actual people are helpful, but it's hard to remember what someone's telling you as they're walking you to the stack and showing you where it is, you know... so, if you had a sheet of paper that you could read over at other universities, so that's probably a large part of it, but it's always... I've had librarians tell me things over and over and over, 'cause I can't pick it up as they're walking in front of me and I'm chasing them down and, you know, carrying 40 pounds of books in my bag and holding six other in my hands and trying to listen to them tell me why I need this and where I'm going and stuff. [6-7]
I haven't really used those resources. I did need to look up an article for an essay I was writing and I just asked the librarian and she basically did the search for me she explained how to do it, so I could go back and do it on my own. She like basically pulled up the page for me and just directed me through it. It wasn't like an article was especially hard to find either, so I haven't had any problems yet. [6-12]
...basically you have to know people here in order to get things to work, on this kind of level, which is in some ways and institutional problem. [8-14]
Another big problem again is with communication. You have to know to go to ----, the same way you have to know that if the subject librarians are happy to do this, if you ask, but they don't come and tell. There's all this information. Each subject librarian is responsible to interface with the department, so the subjects librarians should be coming to you. They assume you know this. You've never been told this. I mean we're still trying to figure out how, in fact, they buy books for this. It's been taking me all semester to try and figure that out. There's a huge bottle neck between what the departments do and what the librarians are doing unless you have a really good librarian who's already proactive in coming up to the department, and I think it's 'cause they're overworked. [8-17]
It's a networking issue. You can just go to one or two people a few people and they'll have the answer for you at least within 24 hours at the most. [9-11]
People feel a bit out of the loop, and would like to not only know what sorts of things are new in the Libraries but what the status of their various request and loans are:
A couple years ago, the university libraries came out with an ad in the Observer about the gateway project interest and I saved that. That was really my big introduction into that whole world, and I still have that copy. It's now yellow, but nothing has come out since to make some of this more friendly.
If you got say a monthly library email newsletter in your in-box. ... I would suggest that you let each person say, because I know in my work I'm doing stuff that is sort historical/sort theological sort of... So that people subscribe to it? Yeah, and you just pick out which ones interest you and then you would get the updates on those and you wouldn't get the updates on the other. You could put one for each department. Put the responsibility of the person subscribing to it.... customize it and you could index it by the library call number or something.
I wish there were some way, that if I were going to be really selfish, not only could I access what books I have checked out, but then be able to transfer them to specific windows so that I can keep track of it. I checked out all of these books with the intent of using them for this course and all of these books ... I would sort of arrange them in different folders
the possibility of seeing online what books you had out. ... That's tremendously helpful, particularly for (unclear) graduate student when you have, you know, 40 or 50 books out.
At the end of the interviews participants were asked to write down three things they wished the Libraries would do to help solve the problems they had been expressing, with the understanding that not all of their wishes would come true. Participants were then asked to mark one of those items as the most important. Items on the wish list echoed themes from the discussions and fell into the following four categories.
The Digital Access and Information Architecture Department has two populations it needs to support: 1) the University community, and 2) the University Libraries community. Based on the focus group interviews described above, the needs of the University community can be summarized as follows:
During the needs assessment DAIAD conducted from September through December of 2001, the Libraries community articulated four desires of the Department:
These seven things have been described to the Department as the most pressing issues it should be addressing. Since no single solution can addresses all these issues, the Department has articulated a four-part plan to address them:
User-centered design is a process whereby services are designed and redesigned from the perspective of the intended audience. User-centered design can make library services more understandable and usable for library users. The Department advocates using user-centered design principles in the creation of all of the Libraries' web-based services. This includes, but is not limited to, conducting usability studies, log file analysis, and additional focus group interviews. The Department will also assist other departments who want to learn about these principles so they can employ the principles in their own work.
By practicing the principles of user-centered design the Libraries will be able to address Issues #1 and #3 of the University community. Information should be easier to find because it will be presented from their point of view, and communication between the Libraries and users will be improved because regular dialog will have increased. Through user-centered design the Libraries will reinforce the idea that it is as an institution responsive to University and individual needs.
This plan advocates reconstituting the Libraries' Web Team, but in a form slightly different from its original structure. The Libraries' Web Team was a group representing many library departments. Its primary purpose was to investigate and prescribe the technological infrastructures used to implement Web-based services. The Team also was intended to set the direction for the Libraries' website. The Team has not met for more than a year.
Since the Libraries' website is increasingly becoming the initial face of the Libraries, it is important for the Department to get regular and formal input regarding the website from library staff. At the same time, the website's primary audience is the students, faculty, and staff of the University. Regular and formal input from the University community is as important, if not more so. Consequently, the Department advocates reconstituting the Web Team, but including members from the University community. Specifically, the Web Team's membership will be made up of at least 51% University community members and no more than 49% library staff. The charge of the Team will be to:
Reconstituting the Web Team in this manner will address a number of issues. First, it will address Issue #3 of the University community by improving communication channels. Second, it will re-enforce the Libraries' ability to provide user-centered services and collections, as it will provide a means for garnering continued user input on the Libraries' digital services and collections. Third, it provides a formalized method for the Department to get input on these issues.
A database driven website with an optional customizable front-end is a technical solution to many of the issues articulated by both the University community and the Libraries' staff. In such a system, information resources would be maintained in a relational database. Each resource would be described with basic bibliographic information such as title, URL, scope note, and one or more subject descriptors taken from one or more sets of controlled vocabularies. Once created, library staff would be able to search the underlying database, select appropriate items, and generate reports in the form of an HTML files created on a Web server. Consequently, content providers (librarians) will not have to know any HTML or how to save files to hard disk.
Additionally, a database driven site would be able to generate lists of information resources dynamically based on the preferences of users. Suppose a controlled vocabulary used to describe the resources directly mapped to the departments and centers of the University. Suppose also a user identified themselves to the website with their AFS ID allowing the system to determine their rank on campus (undergraduate student, graduate student, faculty, etc.) as well as their department or center (Engineering, Chemistry, Psychology, etc.). Given this information an educated guess could be made about the sorts of information resources they require. Consequently, sets of prescribed information sources and resources could be displayed to the user. Furthermore, these sets of prescribed sources and resources could be retained for future reference and customized to suit specialized needs.
Implemented in this manner, a database driven website will address Issues #1 and #2 of the University community, by targeting information resources to specific individuals. It will address Issue #1 of the Libraries, by providing the means to count and report on what resources are being used and by whom. It will also help address Issue #2 of the Libraries because the lists of information resources are not being created by hand.
In addition to information sources and resources in the database, the names and subject specialties of librarians would also be maintained. By adding this information to the database a relationship between users and librarians can be created through the controlled vocabularies. Once established, this will make it possible for users to learn the name of the librarian most likely to be able to assist them. Additionally, this will provide the means for librarians to send targeted communications (primarily email messages) to users in their subject area(s). Consequently, the database driven website will also address Issue #3 of the University community.
A current awareness services, sometimes called a selective dissemination of information service, is a three-step process. The first step entails systematically recording the recent acquisitions to the Libraries' collections. These acquisitions may include anything from standing orders, special collections, newly accessible databases and electronic serials, gifts, or materials received from approval plans. Almost invariably, each of these acquisitions are entered into the integrated library system, and since the integrated library system is essentially a database application, reports can be run against the system on a regular basis, identifying the recently received items.
The second step is a process allowing users to create one or more profiles for themselves matching their particular interests. These profiles may be based on one or more controlled vocabularies such as the ones implemented in the database driven website described above or the Library of Congress call number system. These profiles would be saved electronically along with the user's email address.
The final step in the process is regularly intersecting the list of new acquisitions with users' profiles. The resulting lists of acquisitions in their area(s) of interest would be emailed to each user, along with instructions on how to check out or access items of interest. If the Libraries were to commit the necessary resources for physical and/or electronic document delivery, this plan could easily be extended to facilitate the tracking and reporting of such requests by recording not only email addresses but postal address as well.
Implementing a current awareness services and then a document delivery service would address each of the issues expressed by the University community. It would make information easier to find. It would make documents easier to acquire. It would communicate to the users what the libraries owns and demonstrate a proactive approach to library services.
Given the necessary resources, essentially time, and the omission of additional priorities, the Department believes it can implement this plan using a phased approach by the Spring semester of 2004. The plan proposes the following milestones:
| Date | Milestone |
| Yesterday | Begin and continue to practice user-centered design principles |
| 08/2002 | Complete demonstrating the concept of the database driven website to library personnel |
| 09/2002 | Complete demonstrating the concept of the database driven website to University support services (e.g. Kaneb Center, Web Technologies, OIT) |
| 09/2002 | Begin and continue to demonstrate the concept of the database driven website to University students and faculty |
| 10/2002 | Complete first draft of policy statement describing how the Libraries' database driven website will be administrated |
| 10/2002 | Complete investigations for extracting new bibliographic records from integrated library system |
| 10/2002 | Begin and continue to write and test software implementing database driven website |
| 10/2002 | Begin and continue to write and test software sending lists of new items to library patrons |
| 11/2002 | Complete recreating the Web Team |
| 12/2002 | Complete first round of extensive testing against database driven website and current awareness service |
| 02/2003 | Complete second round of usability testing against database driven website and current awareness service |
| 06/2003 | Complete third round of usability testing against database driven website and current awareness service |
| 10/2003 | Complete fourth round of usability testing against database driven website and current awareness service |
| 01/2004 | Initial release of production version of database driven website and current awareness service |
This is the report from King Communications, the company who moderated the Digital Access and Information Architecture focus group interviews. The report has been edited for style not content. -ELM
Focus groups were conducted for the University Libraries of Notre Dame in an effort to determine what library users want in terms of access to digital library services and collections. Research focused on:
Potential participants were invited to the focus groups by e-mail, word of mouth, posters on bulletin boards in the libraries, tent-cards on tables in on-campus dining facilities, and advertisements in the Observer. Nine focus groups were conducted the first two weeks of February, 2002. Ninety-three people were scheduled to attend. Seventy nine participated and shared their views on current library services and ways to make their access and retrieval of digital information more efficient and effective.
Each focus group included a focus group moderator and a scribe. Each session was audio-taped. A fifteen to thirty minute debriefing occurred at the conclusion of each session. This debriefing included the focus group moderator, scribe, and one to three members of DAIAD.
During the debriefing the following points were discussed:
At the conclusion of each focus group, audiotapes were labeled and sent to a transcription service. After the last focus group was conducted, the moderator, scribes, and the DAIAD staff met to discuss perceptions and themes, and to clarify information. Conclusions were shared with interested library personnel on March 27, 2002.
While the initial intent was to have each group be as homogeneous as possible, this did not occur because of the times people could attend. Even though some groups were comprised of all faculty or all students, information needs and skills in accessing and retrieving information varied greatly within each group.
Productive discussion occurred in all groups because the participants were articulate, were interested in sharing their viewpoints, and cared about the issues. Graduate students and faculty needs were more discipline specific and research focused. Undergraduate needs focused mainly on their difficulty in finding information and their need for tutorials. The few staff members who attended were primarily research assistants for professors. Their needs were also discipline specific and their frustrations were often related to finding information that was accurate, scholarly, and readily available through ILL.
The following viewpoints were voiced more than once by members of the particular subgroup.
The undergraduates who attended the focus groups primarily used online services to check e-mail and read hometown newspapers. They used the Hesburgh Library for studying and finding books and articles for class assignments.
Among the groups represented, I believe there was enough diversity to conclude that this was an adequate sampling for your purposes. In response to the question raised about conclusions that could be drawn from such a small number, I offer this explanation from Working Wisdom: Capturing Employee Insights Through Focus Group Research by Alison Davis, Kimberly Gavagan, and Joe DeLuccia. "There's seldom any reason (other than politics) to conduct more than 12 focus groups. Even if your organization is large and diverse, if you carefully select your participants, you can get everything you need in 10-12 focus groups."
At the conclusion of each focus group, there were always two or more people who said that they appreciated having the opportunity to share their opinions and have someone interested in their concerns. Whether you use this information alone, or with future quantitative research, you have valuable insights about what faculty, students, and staff need to make their access and retrieval of digital information more focused, productive, and "something to be excited about."
February Meeting with Scribes and DAIAD for Group Debrief
93 people signed up to attend 9 focus groups. 79 actually attend. 33 faculty-16 undergraduate students-23 graduate students-7 staff members.
While the initial intent was to have groups as homogeneous as possible, this was not the case. Even though some groups were comprised of all faculty or all students, information needs and knowledge and skills in accessing and retrieving information varied greatly.
Goal of the focus groups were to determine what library users want in terms of access to digital library services and collections.
Date created: 2002-07-31
Date updated: 2002-07-31
URL: http://www.library.nd.edu/daiad/focus-group/
All libraries:
Architecture | Art
Image | Business Information Center
| Chemistry & Physics
| Engineering | Hesburgh
(Main)
Kellogg/Kroc Information Center |
Life Sciences | Mathematics
| Rare
Books & Special Collections | Radiation
Lab | Kresge Law
