Rising Tides: Faculty Expectations of Library Websites
Abstract
Looking at 2003-2009 LibQUAL+ responses at research-oriented universities in the United States, faculty library users report a significant and consistent rise in desires and expectations for library-provided online tools and websites, even as student user groups show declining or leveling expectations. While faculty, like students, also report increased satisfaction with current library-provided online tools and resources, the marked difference between the expectations of faculty and student users is an important one. Rising faculty expectations highlight the importance of strengthening communication and connection with faculty users so that libraries can retain relevancy in the academic environment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Quiet in the Library: An Evidence-Based Approach to Improving the Student Experience
McCaffrey, C., & Breen, M. (2016) · portal: Libraries and the Academy · doi:10.1353/pla.2016.0052 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nicol, E. C., & O'English, M.
- Venue
- portal: Libraries and the Academy
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 371-386
- ISSN
- 1530-7131 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064152023
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 7.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- portal Libraries and the Academy (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Keywords
- faculty expectations, library websites, LibQUAL+, user satisfaction, academic libraries, research universities, library relevance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
