I am conducting a research study on the University of Chicago's
library, and I have found glowing reviews of the library. I was just
wondering if you feel there are any areas the library could improve
upon, or if they have any subjects that are not as strong of a
collection.
At the risk of airing our dirty laundry in public... while we take great pride in our collections and our staff, there are
always opportunities to improve [as regular readers of this blog have doubtless noted]. Following are a few concerns that
occupy our thoughts, that might be relevant for such a study:
Earlier this year we participated in LibQUAL+. Although analysis is
still ongoing, we were surprised to see that some patrons feel we don’t have the print and/or electronic journals they
need for their work. This may indicate actual gaps in our collections,
or an information and publicity problem: patrons may not
be aware of all that we can offer them. In the coming school year,
we’re hoping to do more analysis and data gathering to better
understand this issue.
LibQUAL+ also revealed that many patrons believe we could improve
the Library’s study and reading areas. In part, this sentiment is caused by construction: over the past year we have been renovating the
HVAC system and installing ceiling sprinklers in our main library --
noisy, dusty, and disruptive work. However, these concerns also
illustrate the varied needs of our patrons. Some patrons strongly
prefer a traditional library environment of quiet, individual study.
Others want collaborative space where a certain noise level is
tolerated, if not encouraged. Since the library is supposed to be a
resource for the entire campus, we are trying to juggle these competing
needs.
Finally, we face the same challenges shared by all large academic
libraries, such as spiraling prices, space shortages, and communicating our value to users (not all of whom give us glowing reviews). But at least we have patrons who care about the Library. Not all libraries can say that.