Mega Database Review: How to Have What You Want and

Want What You Have

MLA Conference | October 6, 2010Mary Anne Erwin, MLS & Emily Scharf, MALS

Instruction & Liaison Services | Webster University Library

Today we will discuss

• A comprehensive review of databases used at Webster University by 12,000 students around the US and overseas.

• Explain the review process, talk about successes, what we would do differently and the outcomes of this review.

A word about public institutions

• Webster University does not have to bid for our databases

• This review can also work for public institutions

Photo credit: Flickr user beautifulcataya 9/8/09

Why did we do this?Photo credit: Flickr user alexanderdrachmann 4/13/06

Background

• Instruction & Liaison Services Department creation

• New staff member in charge of databases

Special Projects - 4 Year Cycle

• 2010 – Database review

• 2011 – Weed main collection

• 2012 – Journal review

• 2013 – Standing orders/weed reference collection

Goal

• Do our databases support the current curriculum?

• No mandate to cancel – only review

Who participated?

• Library administration• Subject Liaisons– Faculty

• Faculty, students and staff via Library satisfaction survey

• Reference Librarians• Entire library staff – Some Library student workers – Faculty Development Center staff

Library Administration• Shared goals

• Communication

• Support

Subject Liaisons & ReferenceSubject-Specific Subject Liaison

General / Multidisciplinary Total

13 Art, Theater, Dance, Literature 4 17

12 Behavioral & Social Sciences, Legal Studies 6 18

29 Business & Technology (Math & Comp. Sci) 2 31

7 Education 11 18

6 History, Political Science, International Relations 6

11 Media, Communications, Religion 10 21

9 Music 9

14 Nursing, Biological Sciences 0 14

8 Reference 8

2 Philosophy, Foreign Language 2

GRAND TOTAL 144

Faculty (staff & students)• Faculty contacted at discretion of their subject

liaison– Subject & related databases

• Library’s user satisfaction survey - Spring 2010Please rate your satisfaction with library materials.

__Very Satisfied __ Satisfied __Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied __Dissatisfied __Very Dissatisfied __N/A

• Access to online materials (e.g., databases, full-text journals, ebooks)

• Quality of online materials

Reference Librarians

• Reviewed 8 databases– E.g. Credo Reference and Gale Virtual Reference Library

• Communicated with the subject reviewers regarding subject databases

• WWWDD (What Would We Do Differently?)– Sought their input in a more formal way, earlier in the

process– Perhaps ask which databases they use and why

Library Staff Survey• 38

general/multi-disciplinary databases

• Academic Search Premier

• WorldCat

Process/ProcedurePhoto credit:Flickr user YSPsculpture5/6/10

Procedure

• Databases assigned to liaisons by subject • A master list was made to store all info• Reviewers completed a review sheet for each

database and gave databases a rating from 1-4

• Library staff survey• Liaison meeting• Management team meeting

Master List

Rating System

• Started with a scale of 1 – 5• After discussion, ended up with 1 – 4 scale• Ratings:– 1 = Cancel– 2 = Questionable, Cancel If______– 3 = Important, Fills Niche– 4 = Essential

• WWWDD: only one “4” rating per subject

Sample Comments and Ratings• Rating : 1, Cancel Books in Print

“…it does not seem worth the money to keep a resource that mostly replicates other information and whose usage has dropped by half in the last year (2008 to 2009).”

• Rating: 2, Cancel If… Kids Search“Due to the incongruent nature of this database (a kid-friendly interface that is searching advanced article databases), I would recommend we cancel this if we ever needed to pay for it.”

• Rating: 3, Important, Fills Niche CQ Researcher“It is a valuable resource due to its background information and breadth of content types. …we have no comparable resource online.”

• Rating: 4, Essential JSTOR“Since this is a digital archive of scholarly journals, many historical articles are available in full-text that may not be available in full-text through other databases.”

Review Sheet

• Some categories on this sheet were transferred to our master list

• Each reviewer had two months to review their assigned databases

• Sample review (for a 1 database)

Surveys • Library Staff – General/Multidisciplinary DBs• 34 responses• 27 of 40 full & PT staff • 7 Student workers

• WWWDD?

Library Staff Survey – Results• Academic Search Premier • Most highly rated database

– 69% of respondents rated it “4 – essential”

• Books in Print• Lowest rated database

– 35% of those with an opinion rated it “1 – cancel”– 22% rated it a “4 – essential”

• What we learned from (a) student and faculty

Process/Procedure - Finale• Liaison meeting

• Management Team meeting– Submitted list of databases recommended for

cancellation– Approved!

RATING NUMBER OF DBs POTENTIAL SAVINGS /REALLOCATION

“1 – Cancel because” no longer supports curriculum

11 $35,000

“2 – Cancel if “ liaisons agree 1 $5,000

“2 -- Cancel if ” get new DB 3 $20,000

15 of 152 (9.8%) $60,000

Results

• Cancelled 15 databases• Saved/reallocated $60,000 – Plus reduced acquisition, training & maintenance

costs

• Afforded new databases• Ready answers for questions as they arise– MOREnet – Stat-USA

What we learned/gained• Focus on best DBs for our users

= have what you want• Confidence in/knowledge of our DBs

= want what you have• Instruction Opportunities– Library staff were unsure/no opinion about 53% of

our databases– Summer Learning Series

Contact Us

• Mary Anne Erwinmaerwin@webster.edu(314) 246-7841

• Emily Scharfemilyscharf99@webster.edu(314) 246-7818

library.webster.edu

Questions?Photo credit: Flickr user Oberazzi 12/9/06