12 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
institutions reported consulting with key campus
stakeholders, with only eight libraries (19%) seeking
feedback from their student support services offices
and six from their faculty development offices. The
reliance on current and best practice is more reas-
suring, with 19 of 36 sites (53%) reporting that their
thinking was influenced by literature searches, and
an equal number by site visits and expert opinion.
Eighteen institutions (50%) were influenced by ses-
sions at conferences, but only seven sites reported
being guided by funded research.
Service Location(s) and Descriptions
The physical models vary considerably. Twenty re-
spondents (48%) reported that services are being de-
livered from pre-existing service points. Eighteen
(43%) reported delivering services from a single
discrete location, and 14 (33%) deliver services from
several new service points dispersed across their
The majority of facilities are located in renovated
space (23 respondents or 77%); the other seven (23%)
are located in a combination of new and renovated
spaces. No respondents reported placing a service
in newly constructed space. The vast majority of re-
spondents (91%) indicated that they provide services
to faculty and graduates within the main campus
library. A smaller but still sizable percentage (44%)
indicated that services are provided within branch
libraries; only four respondents said that they offer
services in non-library buildings on campus (typi-
cally departmental offices or academic buildings).
In some cases, the exclusive nature of the facility
or service is designated in its name. Respondents
reported a variety of facility names (e.g., the Faculty
Support Center, Graduate Student Success Center,
Retired Faculty Research Room, Center for Faculty
Excellence). Some incorporate the word “Commons”
in their name to denote the concept of a gathering
place (e.g., Faculty Commons, Research Commons,
Scholarly Commons).
Most libraries reported some flexibility in the
exclusivity of these services. For example, 26 of 39
respondents (67%) indicated that, although the ser-
vices had been designed for faculty and/or grads,
others could use them under some circumstances.
One noted that, although only faculty or grads could
reserve the space, others could use it on a drop-in
basis. Another noted that the space is typically used
for the targeted group but is sometimes opened up
for public events. Only 13 institutions (33%) reported
that the services were always for the exclusive use of
faculty and/or graduate students.
In terms of administrative structure, 37 of the 40
responding institutions report through the library—
sometimes to a library director and other times to an
AUL, branch head, or other high level administrator.
Three institutions also described some accountability
to the Provost and one to an academic dean, while
one facility also reports through a campus advisory
committee. The two facilities that report outside the
library are accountable to a CIO or the senior director
of the campus computer organization.
Respondents reported a broad range of space
offerings, the most common being study seating,
lounge seating, and collaborative rooms. Almost all
respondents (37 or 90%) provide individual/quiet
study seating—six designate this for graduate stu-
dents exclusively and two for faculty only. Lounge
seating is provided at 24 sites (59%)—nine exclusively
for graduate students, two exclusively for faculty.
Eighteen libraries (44%) provide collaborative rooms,
six to graduate students only and three to faculty
only. Fewer institutions provide socializing space (12
or 29%), with one restricting this to graduate students
and two to faculty exclusively.
Other spaces of interest include recording/video-
taping rooms (10 sites or 24%), training spaces (nine
or 22%), presentation practice spaces (eight or 20%),
performance spaces (seven or 17%), and classrooms
(seven or 17%).
The percentage of space allocated to various func-
tions varies considerably. Twenty-six of 29 respond-
ing libraries report that space for quiet study and
reflection ranges from 10% to 100% of the total space
they are providing for faculty and graduate students,
with a mean of 73%. Nineteen respondents report that
louder collaborative work spaces ranges from 5% to
Previous Page Next Page