Reading respond

The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Factors Predicting the Importance of Libraries and Research Activities for Undergraduates

Krista M. Soria University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 272-4 McNamara Alumni Center, 200 Oak St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

E-mail address: [email protected].

0099-1333/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All ri http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.017

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 12 July 2013 Accepted 26 August 2013 Available online 26 September 2013

Keywords: Value of libraries Importance of research activities Undergraduates SERU survey

While prior research has established linkages between undergraduate students' library use, research participa- tion, and success, researchers know little about the importance undergraduates place upon libraries and research activities. Utilizing data from the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey, the purpose of this paper was to examine factors associated with the importance of libraries and research among undergradu- ates at nine large, public research universities. The results of this study suggest a variety of factors are positively associated with the importance of libraries and research for students, including participation in research activi- ties, interest in medical or research careers, academic engagement, faculty interactions, library satisfaction, and development of library skills, among others.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Few would question the vital, symbiotic relationship academic li- braries have with the college and university campuses within which they reside. Kuh and Gonyea (2003, p. 256), for example, noted that “the library is the physical manifestation of the core values and activities of academic life”. While the value of academic libraries may seem axi- omatic, nearly two decades ago, Denham (1995, p. 38) suggested that libraries were “under threat” as they faced critical issues that threatened their existence. While libraries have changed considerably in the last several decades, challenges to the value of libraries have persisted (Oakleaf, 2010). Several researchers have conducted studies addressing the complex and dynamic value of libraries for colleges and universities; for example, through a comprehensive literature review, Lindauer (1998) concluded that academic libraries make significant contribu- tions to campuses by promoting the quality of teaching and learning outcomes. In addition, Weiner (2008) found significant and positive as- sociations between library expenditures and the external reputation of institutions, suggesting the important role libraries hold in enhancing overall institutional prestige.

Researchers continue to document the multifaceted value of aca- demic libraries for colleges and universities amid a climate of persistent calls for increased assessment and accountability (Grallo, Chalmers, & Baker, 2012; Haddow, 2013; Haddow & Joseph, 2010; Hagel, Horn, Owen, & Currie, 2012; Oakleaf, 2010; Pritchard, 1996; Soria, Fransen, & Nackerud, 2013; Wong & Webb, 2011); yet, while prior research has deepened understanding of academic libraries' value for campuses, a clear void in the literature exists with regards to understanding the importance undergraduate students place upon academic libraries and research activities. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to

ghts reserved.

investigate demographic, collegiate, and academic factors associated with the level of importance students place upon libraries and research activities.

This area of scholarship is significant to academic libraries for a vari- ety of reasons. Even before enrolling, many prospective high school stu- dents consider libraries important in their college choice decisions (Lombard, 2012; Reynolds, 2007). Librarians are therefore in a position to use information regarding the importance students place upon librar- ies and research to leverage additional resources, build more advanced facilities, and expand their collections, all of which could attract more applicants to their institutions. Undergraduate students who do not consider libraries important may not use library facilities or collections to support their academic work or regard them as vital network of re- sources on campus. A lack of engagement with libraries systems and fa- cilities could lead to immediate reduction of funding for libraries' support services if they go underutilized. Additionally, students who do not use libraries may not be as successful as their peers: Soria et al. (2013) discovered students' use of academic libraries is significantly and positively associated with their academic achievement and reten- tion controlling for other factors.

In the long-term, students who do not perceive libraries or research important to the enterprise may not provide alumni support toward im- proving those areas (Clemes, Gan, & Kao, 2008; McAlexander & Koenig, 2001). Lack of student support for the value of libraries could negatively impact greater organizational support for libraries' functions. The lack of organizational support for libraries is a matter of deep concern because libraries and librarians are sometimes considered ancillary to the enter- prise (Crowley, 1996), some have commented that academic libraries are largely invisible to university administrators (Hardesty, 2000), and universities have already lowered their proportion of financial expendi- tures to libraries in the last several decades (Association of Research

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for variables used in analysis.

Categorical variables used in analysis n % Coding/scale

Demographic and personal characteristics Female 9861 58.77 0 = male; 1 = female American Indian or Native American 68 .41 0 = White students;

1 race/ethnicity designated

African American 826 4.92 Hispanic 1884 11.23 Asian 2630 15.67 International 685 4.08 Other or unknown race or ethnicity 768 4.58 Household income b $19,999 1885 11.23 0 = $100,000 and over;

1 = income designatedHousehold income $20,000–$49,999 2784 16.59 Household income $50,000–$79,999 2941 17.53 Household income $80,000–$99,999 1836 10.94 Transfer student 2576 15.35 0 = non-transfer;

1 = transfer Freshman 2508 14.95 0 = senior; 1 = level

designatedSophomore 3491 20.81 Junior 4375 26.07

College experiences Lived in a fraternity or sorority 690 4.11 0 = lived in another

location; 1 = lived in designated location

Lived in a university residence hall or apartment

4628 27.58

Lived with family 891 5.31 Enrolled in at least one student research course

6649 39.63 0 = no; 1 = yes

Enrolled in at least one independent study course

3337 19.89

Assisted faculty in research with course credit

2883 17.18

Assisted faculty in research for pay without course credit

1682 10.02

Assisted faculty in research as a volunteer without course credit

2434 14.51

Career choice Artistic or creative professions 1549 9.23 0 = “I do not know”

and “other” careers; 1 = career designated

Business or finance professions 2568 15.30 Education 1085 6.47 Engineering or computer programming 2037 12.14 Law 1202 7.16 Medicine or health related professions 3842 22.90 Psychology or helping professions 835 4.98 Researcher or scientist 1022 6.09

Academic major Science, technology, engineering, or math

4778 28.48 0 = undeclared; 1 = yes

Arts or humanities 3021 18.03 Social sciences 1965 11.71 Business 2163 12.89 Education 245 1.46 Health and physical fitness 1420 8.46

Continuous variables used in analysis M SD Range

Cumulative grade point average 3.27 .54 .00 to 4.30 Academic engagement factor .00 1.00 −2.57 to 2.37 Importance of libraries and research factor .00 1.00 −3.46 to 2.55 Library skills factor .00 1.00 −8.89 to 6.21 Satisfaction with libraries and research factor

.00 1.00 −4.95 to 2.18

Faculty interactions factor .00 1.00 −2.66 to 4.52

465K.M. Soria / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470

Libraries, 2012). These factors signal increasing pressure for academic li- braries to demonstrate their continued value, especially among under- graduate students who are essential to the mission and function of most universities.

Prior researchers have examined differences in undergraduates' use of library facilities by demographic factors, including cultural diver- sity, race, and gender (Onwuegbuzie & Qun, 1997; Whitmire, 1999, 2003); college experiences (Whitmire, 2001); and academic disciplines (Bridges, 2008; Hiller, 2002). Yet, at present, there is no scholarship examining whether these types of demographics, background charac- teristics, and college experiences are associated with the importance students place on libraries and research activities as a part of their higher education experience. The results of the present study address- ing the gap in scholarship can be used in a variety of ways to help aca- demic librarians and administrators to understand which populations of students value libraries and research activity over others, what colle- giate experiences can positively promote the value of libraries and re- search activities among students, and whether there are differences in the importance of libraries and research activities between students en- rolled in different academic disciplines.

With all of those perspectives in mind, the purpose of this study is to examine the importance of libraries and research activities among stu- dents who attended nine large, public research universities in 2011. After learning more about the factors predicting the importance of librar- ies and research activities among undergraduates at research universities, library staff can conduct outreach efforts to impart their value among specific groups of students who are less likely to value libraries, seek to learn more about why particular groups of students do not consider li- braries and research important, and connect with students who do value libraries and research activity to leverage their support amid a cli- mate of deprioritization and defunding of libraries. With this information, librarians can also continue to evolve their libraries' missions and expand their services to reach out to undergraduates and encourage them to un- derstand the value of libraries and research activities.

METHODS

INSTRUMENT

The Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey is based at the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California Berkeley (2011). The SERU survey sampling plan is a census scan of the undergraduate experience. All undergraduates enrolled spring 2011 who were also enrolled at the end of the prior term were included in this web-based questionnaire, with the majority of commu- nication occurring by electronic mail. In the SERU survey, each student answered a set of core questions and was randomly assigned to one of four modules containing items focused specifically on a research theme. The core and module questions highlight several thematic re- search areas, including campus climate, satisfaction, academic engage- ment, community and civic engagement, global knowledge and skills, and student life and development. I used survey items I derived from a module which included items assessing the importance students place upon libraries and research activities on their campuses.

PARTICIPANTS

The SERU survey was administered to 213,160 undergraduate stu- dents across nine large, public universities classified by the Carnegie Foundation as having very high research activity. The institutional level completion response rate for the SERU survey was 38.1%. Items used in this analysis were embedded in an academic engagement mod- ule of the SERU survey randomly assigned to 20–30% of students depending upon the institutions' preferences (n = 16,778). The major- ity of students who participated were White and female students (Table 1).

PROCEDURES

I first conducted descriptive analyses to ascertain students' beliefs about the importance of libraries and research activities. I conducted all analyses using SPSS 21.0 (IBM Corp., 2012). Next, I developed factors from several survey items that conceptualized the importance of aca- demic libraries and research activities. I developed additional variables through factor analysis, including students' academic engagement, de- velopment of library and research skills, satisfaction with libraries and research opportunities, and faculty interactions. I next conducted an ordinary least squares regression predicting the importance of libraries

466 K.M. Soria / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470

and research activities. This regression analysis examined the associations between the dependent variable and several independent variables, in- cluding demographic and socioeconomic variables, college experience variables, academic major and career aspirations, academic achievement, research participation, and the additional engagement, skills develop- ment, satisfaction, and faculty interactions variables developed through factor analysis. The goal of this research was to investigate whether these variables are associated with students' perceptions of the impor- tance of libraries and research activities.

MEASURES

DEMOGRAPHIC Several demographic variables were used in the models, including

gender, race/ethnicity, and first-generation status. Additional demo- graphic variables included transfer status, family income, and academic level (e.g., freshman, sophomore, etc.). All variables were dummy- coded (e.g., 1 = Hispanic, 0 = all others; 1 = family income less than $20,000; 0 = all others). Freshman, sophomores, and juniors were target variables with seniors as the common referent for all of those categories. The academic levels were determined by the number of credits students had earned—this skewed the levels toward upper- classmen as many students had transferred in AP credits or credits from other institutions. All household income groups were compared against students whose families made over $100,000 per year. The de- scriptive statistics for these variables are found in Table 1.

LIBRARY AND RESEARCH SKILLS DEVELOPMENT Students were asked to rate their library and research skills in four

areas both when they started at the university and their current ability (Table 2 has these items listed as used in factor analysis). The original scale ranged from 1 to 6 (very poor to excellent). Students' ratings of their ability when they started at the university were subtracted from their current ability to denote their development or regression of skills.

COLLEGE EXPERIENCE VARIABLES I also included students' college experiences as independent vari-

ables, which included students' residence and participation in research activities with or without academic credit or pay. Students' residence was dummy-coded and compared against other residency variables,

Table 2 Summary of factor analysis results for the SERU questionnaire (n = 16,788).

Item Academic engagement (α = .89)

Im and (α

Contributed to a class discussion .966 −. Brought up ideas or concepts from different courses during class discussions

.931 .

Asked an insightful question in class .909 . Interacted with faculty during lecture class sessions .724 −. Had a class in which the professor knew or learned your name .601 −. Found a course so interesting you did more work than was required .511 . Communicated with a faculty member by email or in person .433 −. Learning research methods −.052 . Pursuing your own research −.060 . Attending a university with world-class researchers is important to me −.009 . Having access to a world-class library collection .172 . Internet skills −.027 −. Other research skills .002 . Library research skills .072 . Computer skills −.071 −. Accessibility of library staff −.004 . Availability of library research materials .008 . Opportunities for research experience or to produce creative products −.130 −. Worked with a faculty member on an activity other than coursework .043 . Taken a small research-oriented seminar with faculty −.062 . Talked with the instructor outside of class about issues and concepts derived from a course

.449 −.

which included off-campus residence not with family. The research par- ticipation variables were dichotomous (e.g., 0 = did not participate, 1 = participated). Cumulative grade point average from the fall semes- ter was provided by institutions. All of these variables are listed in Table 1.

ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT AND FACULTY INTERACTIONS I measured students' academic engagement and interactions with

faculty through several survey items. Academic engagement included questions about students' engagement in the classroom context while faculty interactions included both classroom and outside-of-class inter- actions. Table 2 lists these items as used in factor analysis.

LIBRARIES AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES SATISFACTION Students were asked to rate their satisfaction with opportunities for

research experiences, accessibility of library staff, and availability of librar- y research materials. Table 2 lists these items as used in factor analysis.

ACADEMIC MAJOR AND CAREER ASPIRATIONS Participating institutions provided information regarding students'

academic majors. The academic majors were recoded into more com- prehensive categories with students who had undeclared majors serv- ing as the referent group. Students were also asked to indicate the career they would eventually like to have after graduation. Students who selected “I do not know” and “other” served as the common refer- ent group for the variables in this category. The descriptive statistics for these variables are listed in Table 1.

IMPORTANCE OF LIBRARIES AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES Four survey items captured the level of importance students placed

upon libraries and research activities. These items asked students to rate the importance of having access to a world-class library, pursuing their own research and learning research activities, and attending a universi- ty with world-class researchers. Table 3 presents the descriptive statis- tics regarding the number and percentage of students responding to each component of the original scales of the items.

FACTOR ANALYSIS To obtain factors from the survey items, I conducted a factor analysis

on 21 items with oblique rotation (Promax). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

portance of libraries research = .79)

Library and research skills development (α = .75)

Satisfaction with libraries and research opportunities (α = .73)

Faculty interactions (α = .74)

010 −.018 −.025 −.194 032 −.027 −.072 −.098

050 .005 −.068 −.111 067 −.002 .018 .208 119 .027 .096 .203 234 −.007 −.049 .129 106 .010 .120 .416 853 .023 −.043 .085 835 −.054 −.114 .185 677 −.030 .127 .005 637 .054 .148 −.164 045 .808 −.099 .023 071 .774 .045 .038 037 .758 .106 −.125 069 .680 −.070 .109 016 −.028 .917 −.087 047 .008 .902 −.121 017 −.021 .590 .372 016 .021 −.046 .754 134 .021 −.052 .719 021 −.009 .040 .476

Table 3 The importance of libraries and research activities among undergraduates.

Importance of Libraries and Research Activities n %

Importance of having access to a world-class library collection Not important 401 2.4 Not very important 1222 7.3 Somewhat important 3188 19.0 Important 5375 32.0 Very important 4148 24.7 Essential 2445 14.6

Importance of pursuing your own research Not important 1195 7.1 Not very important 3375 20.1 Somewhat important 4165 24.8 Important 4291 25.6 Very important 2420 14.4 Essential 1333 7.9

Importance of learning research methods Not important 648 3.9 Not very important 1866 11.1 Somewhat important 4092 24.4 Important 5476 32.6 Very important 3135 18.7 Essential 1562 9.3

Attending a university with world-class researchers is important to me Strongly disagree 323 1.9 Disagree 878 5.2 Disagree somewhat 1585 9.4 Agree somewhat 4695 28.0 Agree 5932 35.4 Strongly agree 3366 20.1

467K.M. Soria / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470

measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis (KMO = .86). Bartlett's test of sphericity, χ2 (210) = 156712.77, p b .001, indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA. Five com- ponents had an eigenvalue over Kaiser's criterion of one and explained 63.1% of the variance. Given the large sample size, Kaiser's criteria for components, and the convergence of a scree plot that showed inflections that justify retaining five components, the final analysis retained the fol- lowing factors: importance of libraries and research activities, academic engagement, library and research skills development, satisfaction with li- braries and research opportunities, and faculty interactions. Table 1 pro- vides details regarding the ranges of the factors and Table 2 demonstrates the factor loadings after rotation in a pattern matrix, with factor loadings over .40 in bold. I computed the factor scores using the re- gression method and they were saved as standardized scores with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. All of the factors had ac- ceptable to good internal consistency (α ≥ .73) (George & Mallery, 2003).

RESULTS

The descriptive analysis suggests 71.3% of students considered having access to world-class libraries important, very important, or es- sential (Table 3). Additionally, 47.9% of students believed pursuing their own research was important, very important, or essential. Slightly over three-fifths (60.6%) of students rated learning research methods as important, very important, or essential. Additionally, the majority of students—83.5%—somewhat agreed to strongly agreed attending a world-class research university was important to them.

I next utilized an ordinary least squares regression to examine factors associated with the importance undergraduates place upon academic libraries and research activities. I tested assumptions of multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, linearity, and independent/normal errors. Tests of the multiple regression assumptions indicated no multicollinearity among the independent variables, with tolerance levels above zero and VIF statis- tics below 10. In testing homoscedasticity, random scatter and variabil- ity in scatterplots of standardized residuals against the standardized predicted values were apparent. A histogram of standardized residuals

and normal probability plots comparing the distribution of standardized residuals to a normal distribution suggested normal distributions. Exam- inations of matrix scatterplots suggested the relationships between the predictor and outcome variables were linear. The residual errors were in- dependent and the Durbin–Watson value was 1.975 (Durbin & Watson, 1951).

The regression model predicting the importance students place upon libraries and research activity was statistically significant, F(44, 16,736) = 111.82, p b .001, and the model explains 22.7% of the vari- ance in the importance of libraries and research activities (Table 4). With regards to demographic factors, the model suggests female under- graduates are significantly (p b .05) less likely to place importance upon libraries and research as male undergraduates. Additionally, Hispanic students, Asian students, international students, and students from an unknown or other racial identity place significantly (p b .05) more im- portance upon libraries and research than their peers. Students from lower income families (total family income less than $49,999 per year) placed significantly greater (p b .05) value upon libraries and re- search compared with their peers from higher income families. Transfer students were significantly (p b .05) more likely to perceive libraries and research activities as important than native students while students at freshman, sophomore, and junior academic levels placed significantly greater (p b .05) importance on libraries and research compared with seniors (the referent group of students).

Students' grade point average was positively associated with the im- portance they place upon libraries and research activities. Students who had participated in all types of research activities—including enrolling in research-oriented courses and assisting faculty with research for pay, course credit, and as a volunteer—were significantly (p b .05) more likely than their peers who had not participated in research to perceive libraries and research activities as important. Examinations of the stan- dardized coefficients suggests that the research activity with the stron- gest predictive value in this model was enrolling in a student research course (β = .066), followed by assisting faculty in research as a volun- teer (β = .053) and assisting faculty in research with course credit (β = .033), although those effect sizes were small.

Students who aspired to careers in engineering or computer pro- gramming, law, medicine or health-related professions, psychology or helping professions, and research/science professions placed signifi- cantly (p b .05) higher importance of libraries and research, on average, than their peers. Examinations of the standardized coefficients suggest that career aspirations in research/science and medicine or health- related professions were the strongest predictors of all the career choices (β = .181 and β = .125 respectively). Students enrolled in an arts or humanities, business, education, and health or physical fitness majors placed a significantly (p b .05) lower importance on academic li- braries and research than their referent groups (undeclared and other majors). Only students enrolled in social sciences had significantly (p b .05) higher importance of libraries and research compared to stu- dents enrolled in other majors.

Finally, the four additional variables created through factor analysis— academic engagement, research and library skills development, satis- faction with libraries and research opportunities, and faculty interac- tions—were positively and significantly (p b .05) associated with the importance students placed upon libraries and research. Examinations of the standardized residuals suggest the factor with the strongest rela- tionship was satisfaction with libraries and research opportunities (β = .194), followed by students' academic engagement (β = .157). In examining all of the standardized coefficients in the model, the five most important predictors were students' satisfaction with libraries, their interest in holding a research or scientist profession, their academ- ic engagement, their interest working in a medical or health-related profession, and their academic level (particularly freshmen and sopho- mores). Although the effect sizes of these variables were relatively small, they are the areas which may hold the most potential interest among libraries.

Table 4 Regression analysis predicting the importance of libraries and research activities.

Predictor B SE β

(Constant) −.636⁎⁎⁎ .053 Female −.081⁎⁎⁎ .015 −.040 American Indian or Native American −.017 .107 −.001 African American .032 .033 .007 Hispanic .189⁎⁎⁎ .023 .060 Asian .291⁎⁎⁎ .020 .106 International .357⁎⁎⁎ .036 .071 Other or unknown race or ethnicity .135⁎⁎⁎ .033 .028 Transfer student .190⁎⁎⁎ .021 .068 Freshman .366⁎⁎⁎ .027 .131 Sophomore .302⁎⁎⁎ .021 .123 Junior .194⁎⁎⁎ .018 .085 Household income b $19,999 .063⁎⁎ .024 .020 Household income $20,000–$49,999 .047⁎ .020 .017 Household income $50,000–$79,999 .022 .019 .008 Household income $80,000–$99,999 .008 .023 .002 Lived in a fraternity or sorority −.038 .035 −.008 Lived in a university residence hall or apartment .007 .019 .003 Lived with family −.023 .031 −.005 Cumulative grade point average .050⁎⁎⁎ .013 .027 Enrolled in at least one student research course .135⁎⁎⁎ .016 .066 Enrolled in at least one independent study course .062⁎⁎ .019 .025 Assisted faculty in research with course credit .088⁎⁎⁎ .021 .033 Assisted faculty in research for pay without course credit .097⁎⁎⁎ .025 .029 Assisted faculty in research as a volunteer without course credit

.149⁎⁎⁎ .022 .053

Artistic or creative professions −.022 .029 −.006 Business or finance professions −.010 .027 −.004 Education profession .024 .033 .006 Engineering or computer programming professions .137⁎⁎⁎ .030 .045 Law profession .166⁎⁎⁎ .031 .043 Medicine or health-related professions .298⁎⁎⁎ .025 .125 Psychology or helping professions .153⁎⁎⁎ .037 .033 Researcher or scientist profession .755⁎⁎⁎ .034 .181 Science, technology, engineering, or math major −.011 .024 −.005 Arts or humanities major −.058⁎ .026 −.022 Social sciences major .058⁎ .029 .019 Business major −.126⁎⁎⁎ .030 −.042 Education major −.303⁎⁎⁎ .062 −.036 Health or physical fitness major −.279⁎⁎⁎ .031 −.078 Academic engagement .157⁎⁎⁎ .008 .157 Development of library and research skills .107⁎⁎⁎ .007 .107 Satisfaction with libraries and research opportunities .194⁎⁎⁎ .007 .194 Faculty interactions .062⁎⁎⁎ .008 .062 R2 22.7%

Note. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001

468 K.M. Soria / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470

LIMITATIONS

One limitation of this study lies in the potential for bias due to survey non-response. Additionally, students' experiences at large, public re- search universities were only captured. The particular institutional con- text may limit generalizability to other institutions, as students may have increased access to research courses or research opportunities with faculty compared to students enrolled in other types of institutions (e.g., community colleges and private liberal arts colleges). Additionally, limited aspects of the importance of libraries and research activities were assessed; researchers are encouraged to seek more nuanced infor- mation that can be used to understand the importance students place upon their libraries and research activities. All analyses are correlational, not causational, so investigators are encouraged to dig deeper into these results to discover the underlying character of these observed relation- ships. Qualitative research can yield new insights into the ways in which students' perceive libraries and research as important. Finally, the analysis explains 22.7% of the importance of libraries and research activities—additional factors not included in this study should be inves- tigated to determine the factors that predict the importance of libraries and research activities among undergraduates.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The descriptive results of this study suggest nearly three-quarters of students enrolled at the research universities in this sample consider libraries to be an important, very important, or essential factor for them. This new knowledge validates the relative importance of libraries among many of students who select to attend research universities. Additionally, the results suggest nearly two-thirds of students believed learning research methods was important, very important, or essential while less than half believed pursuing their own research was important, very important, or essential. Finally, slightly over four-fifths of students agreed attending a world-class research university was important, very important, or essential to them. While those numbers are overall encour- aging, given the institutional context, it is somewhat discouraging that less than half of students are interested in pursuing their own research and not all students place importance upon libraries and research activities. An investigation into some of the factors that might predict the importance students place upon libraries and research activities is therefore warranted.

The inferential results of this study suggest several factors are posi- tively associated with the importance students place upon academic li- braries and research activities at research universities. These areas are among those that hold the greatest potential for library staff to leverage in garnering support for ongoing activities, future development and growth, and increased prioritization within the larger organization. For example, library staff may be more successful in reaching out to His- panic, Asian, international, and male students in fundraising or develop- ment efforts because these students place greater importance upon libraries and research than their peers. Additionally, transfer students, students from lower-income backgrounds, and students who were newer to the institution also perceive libraries and research as more im- portant than their peers. In seeking ambassadors for library support, these students may be some of the greatest advocates to impart the im- portance of libraries in positions such as peer tutoring or peer research support. Students of these demographic backgrounds may also prove useful representatives of librarians' efforts to gain institutional recogni- tion and support from administrative officials, state legislatures, or policymakers. Furthermore, admissions offices may see success in highlighting libraries and research activities when promoting their uni- versities to these particular students.

Conversely, the presence of some student groups who view libraries and research activities as significantly less important than their peers beckons future inquiries into the reasons these students do not value libraries and research with as much importance as their peers. For example, females and students enrolled in business, education, arts/ humanities, and health/physical fitness majors perceived libraries as significantly less important than males and students enrolled in other majors. These particular groups may represent areas of invest- ment for librarians seeking to learn how to garner long-term support among a wider alumni base that may not traditionally view libraries and research activities as important to their higher education experience.

It is perhaps not surprising that students who participated in re- search with faculty or enrolled in research classes considered libraries and research more important than students who did not participate in research activities or classes. The results of the analysis suggest students who are interested in law, engineering or computer programming, medical, psychology, scientist, or research professions believed libraries and research activities are significantly more important than their peers. Although this makes sense given the extensive amount of re- search professionals in these areas may conduct as part of their educa- tional preparation and daily practice, students interested in pursuing alternate professions may also engage in research as part of academic preparation or while employed in their professions. Students who are not aware of the potentially important role of research in their profes- sions may not take advantage of opportunities to hone their research

469K.M. Soria / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470

and information skills or undertake research opportunities in classes or with faculty while undergraduates.

Finally, it is encouraging that students who have developed library and research skills place greater value upon libraries and research activi- ties, as do students who are more satisfied with libraries and research op- portunities. Librarians who work to increase students' library and research skills through workshops or course-integrated instruction may find students value libraries more as a consequence (Bodi, 2002). Student satisfaction with libraries was also significant in predicting the extent to which they feel libraries and research activities are important to them. Students who are academically engaged and students who interact fre- quently with their faculty also viewed libraries and research as more im- portant than their peers; this finding suggests the potential importance of libraries integration in classrooms and collaborations with faculty.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Ultimately, efforts to understand—or impart—the value of libraries and research activities among undergraduate students should not be under the sole purview of academic library staff; instead, multiple campus part- nerships and collaborations should be undertaken to both examine and raise the importance of libraries and research activities among college stu- dents. Given the important role libraries play in students' admission deci- sions (Lombard, 2012; Reynolds, 2007), librarians, administrators, and campus partners in admissions offices can start early by reaching out to prospective undergraduates and communicating the ways in which li- braries contribute to students' academic success (Oakleaf, 2010; Soria et al., 2013). Dodsworth (1998) and Duke and Tucker (2007) suggested that librarians create aggressive marketing plans to promote their collec- tions, services, and facilities—all of which can serve a larger purpose of stimulating demand for the use of the libraries, building good relation- ships with clientele, and accentuating the value of libraries. This study suggests some groups of students may respond to those library marketing messages more readily than others.

Promotional messages can continue as students progress throughout their undergraduate careers; for example, several researchers have outlined outreach roles that librarians can take to promote their services, including by assisting first-year students in freshman seminar courses or in orientation (Brown, Weingart, Johnson, & Dance, 2004; Johnson, McCord, & Walter, 2003)—ideal locations within which librarians can impart the value of libraries and research activities as students begin their academic careers. Librarians can work with campus partners to craft messages for sophomores, juniors, and seniors who are making important academic major and career decisions and let them know about the career resources available in their collections (e.g., “how to choose a major” guides). In describing a partnership at the University of Buffalo in between academic libraries and a career services center, for example, Hollister (2005) suggested integrated library instruction, information literacy workshops, and library reference hours in a career resource center can benefit students, librarians, and career services per- sonnel alike.

While many of the students of color in this sample valued libraries and research activities as more important than their peers, African American and Native American students were two groups of students who did not significantly value libraries and research more or less than their peers. Collaborations with multicultural student services offices may enhance awareness behind these racial differences in the value of libraries and re- search (Love & Edwards, 2009). These collaborations can also be used to build firmer connections between libraries and student services, leading to potentially greater support of libraries among undergraduate students who receive multiple opportunities to interact with librarians, utilize li- brary support services, and receive greater access to collections.

In this study, several student groups emerged as “low-hanging fruit” which librarians could pluck to champion the value of libraries and research; specifically, some of these groups included those who engaged in research courses or assisted faculty with research; were interested in

law, engineering, computer, medical, psychology, and researcher/scientist professions; and were enrolled in social sciences majors. Librarians may wish to spend time exploring why students interested in other profes- sions do not value libraries and research activities as much as their peers. Furthermore, librarians may wish to connect with students inter- ested in other professions to impart how libraries and research activities can benefit them not only as undergraduates, but also as means of gaining valuable research skills they can use in any profession. Peer research tutors can also play a key role in helping libraries staff to impart the long-term value of libraries and research activities among other college students (Deese-Roberts & Keating, 2000).

Librarians can also communicate the importance of engagement in research opportunities and the research resources they provide to stu- dents, especially to students who do not have opportunities to engage in formal research partnerships or take research classes—students who in this study did not place as much important upon libraries and research activities as students who engaged in research. There is work that librar- ians can conduct in collaboration with other campus services or units to enhance the value research activities; for example, librarians can make concerted efforts to engage academic units whose students who may not consider libraries and research important and place a special empha- sis on partnering with faculty (Sanborn, 2005), holding library research workshops in classes (Emmons & Martin, 2002), leading tours of libraries services (Kasbohm, Schoen, & Dubaj, 2006), or recruiting those students to become research assistants or library peer mentors (Deese-Roberts & Keating, 2000). While none of those activities are particularly innovative at this point, outcomes associated with those activities have focused on students' acquisition of information literacy skills or academic success as opposed to increasing the importance of libraries and research activi- ties among students who participate.

Undergraduate students may lack awareness of the comprehensive value of libraries beyond places to study or access collections; yet, librar- ians may also neglect to share their comprehensive value and worth to undergraduates as well. Lindauer (1998) suggested the teaching func- tions of libraries have gained renewed importance as they directly sup- port students' skill development in areas such as general education, critical thinking, computer literacy, and lifelong learning. Librarians can expand their teaching roles to reach more broadly across the uni- versity to convey their value to the academic enterprise. In taking these steps at research universities in particular, librarians can craft dis- tinct messages to undergraduates and encourage them to take advan- tage of research opportunities and resources, inform them about the value of attending research universities, and convey the important role research universities—and their libraries—have had in advancing research and society.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study suggests libraries and research activities are considered important, very important, or essential by the majority of students who attend research universities; however, not all students consider libraries and research activities important, so future research should be conducted to deduce why some students do not value librar- ies and research as highly as others. A variety of factors are positively as- sociated with the importance of libraries and research activities among undergraduates at research universities—including several areas librar- ians can potentially influence. Librarians can use these findings to lever- age continued support among specific groups of students while at the same time seeking to understand how they can promote libraries' ben- efits and enhance their value in the eyes of undergraduates.

REFERENCES

Association of Research Libraries (2012). Library expenditures as a percent of total uni- versity expenditures v. total university expenditures, 1982–2009. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/eg/index.shtml

470 K.M. Soria / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 464–470

Bodi, S. (2002). How do we bridge the gap between what we teach and what they do? Some thoughts on the place of questions in the process of research. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(3), 109–114.

Bridges, L. M. (2008). Who is not using the library? A comparison of undergraduate dis- ciplines and library use. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8(2), 187–196.

Brown, A. G., Weingart, S., Johnson, J. R. J., & Dance, B. (2004). Librarians don't bite: Assessing library orientation for freshman. Reference Services Review, 32(4), 394–403.

Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California Berkeley (2011). Student experience in the research university (SERU) project and consortium. Retrieved from http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/seru/index.htm

Clemes, M.D., Gan, C. E. C., & Kao, T. -H. (2008). University student satisfaction: An empir- ical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292–325.

Crowley, B. (1996). Redefining the status of the librarian in higher education. College and Research Libraries, 57(2), 113–121.

Deese-Roberts, S., & Keating, K. (2000). Integrating a library strategies peer tutoring pro- gram. Research Strategies, 17(2–3), 223–229.

Denham, R. (1995). Strategic planning: Creating the future. Feliciter, 41, 38–43. Dodsworth, E. (1998). Marketing academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,

24(4), 320–322. Duke, L. M., & Tucker, T. (2007). How to develop a marketing plan for an academic library.

Technical Services Quarterly, 25(1), 51–68. Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression,

II. Biometrika, 38, 159–179. Emmons, M., & Martin, W. (2002). Engaging conversation: Evaluating the contribution of

library instruction to the quality of student research. College and Research Libraries, 63(6), 545–560.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and refer- ence. 11.0 update (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Grallo, J.D., Chalmers, M., & Baker, P. G. (2012). How do I get a campus ID? The other role of the academic library in student retention and success. The Reference Librarian, 53(2), 182–193.

Haddow, G. (2013). Academic library use and student retention: A quantitative analysis. Library and Information Science Research, 35, 127–136.

Haddow, G., & Joseph, J. (2010). Loans, logins, and lasting the course: Academic library use and student retention. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 41(4), 233–244.

Hagel, P., Horn, A., Owen, S., & Currie, M. (2012). “How can we help?” The contribution of university libraries to student retention. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 43(3), 214–230.

Hardesty, L. (2000). Do we need academic libraries? A position paper of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Last modified January 21, 2000. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/doweneedacademic

Hiller, S. (2002). How different are they? A comparison by academic area of library use, priorities, and information needs at the University of Washington. Issues in Science

and Technology Librarianship, 33 (Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/02-winter/ article1.html)

Hollister, C. (2005). Bringing information literacy to career services. Reference Services Review, 33(1), 104–111.

IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Johnson, C. M., McCord, S. K., & Walter, S. (2003). Instructional outreach across the curric-

ulum. The Reference Librarian, 39(82), 19–37. Kasbohm, K., Schoen, D., & Dubaj, M. (2006). Launching the library mystery tour: A library

component for the “first-year experience. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13(2), 35–46.

Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The role of the academic library in promoting student engagement in learning. College and Research Libraries, 64(4), 256–282.

Lindauer, B. G. (1998). Defining and measuring the library's impact on campuswide out- comes. College and Research Libraries, 59(6), 546–570.

Lombard, E. (2012). The role of the academic library in college choice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 237–241.

Love, E., & Edwards, M. B. (2009). Forging inroads between libraries and academic, mul- ticultural, and student services. Reference Services Review, 37(1), 20–29.

McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2001). University experiences, the student–college rela- tionship, and alumni support. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3), 21–44.

Oakleaf, M. (2010). The value of academic libraries: A comprehensive research review and re- port. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Qun, J. G. (1997). Prevalence and reasons for university library usage. Library Review, 46(6), 411–420.

Pritchard, S. M. (1996). Determining quality in academic libraries. Library Trends, 44(3), 572–594.

Reynolds, G. L. (2007). The impact of facilities on recruitment and retention of students. New Directions for Institutional Research, 135, 63–80.

Sanborn, L. (2005). Perspectives on…improving library instruction: Faculty collaboration. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(5), 477–481.

Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2013). Library use and undergraduate student out- comes: New evidence for students' retention and academic success. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 13(2), 147–164.

Weiner, S. (2008). The contribution of the library to the reputation of a university. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(1), 3–13.

Whitmire, E. (1999). Racial differences in the academic library experiences of undergrad- uates. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 25(1), 33–37.

Whitmire, E. (2001). The relationship between undergraduates' background characteris- tics and college experiences and their academic library use. College and Research Libraries, 62(6), 528–540.

Whitmire, E. (2003). Cultural diversity and undergraduates' academic library use. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 29(3), 148–161.

Wong, S. H. R., & Webb, T. D. (2011). Uncovering meaningful correlation between student academic performance and library material usage. College and Research Libraries, 72(4), 361–370.