Reading respond

Carefully read, summarize and respond to the following text by

Krista Soria

as preparation to our library session. Your response should be between 400-600 words and include a brief summary and discussion. Appropriate response/discussion includes your evaluation or criticism of arguments found in the reading, your own suggestions for extending or modifying these arguments, finding points of connection or contradiction between readings, application of ideas found in the reading to analyze a specific issue of interest to you, and reflections on personal experiences touched on by the reading. Citations are appreciated. Please write and save your posts in a word document or equivalent for your records and upload acceptable files (doc, docx, rtf, pdf) under the corresponding Canvas assignment. Bring a copy of your response to class or be able to access your copy in class.

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: ksoria@umn.edu.

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.

ghts 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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.017

mailto:ksoria@umn.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.017

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/

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

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.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0005

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0010

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0015

http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/seru/index.htm

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0020

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0025

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0030

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0035

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0040

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0045

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0050

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0055

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0060

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0065

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0070

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0075

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0080

http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/doweneedacademic

http://www.istl.org/02-winter/article1.html

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0085

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0200

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0205

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0095

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0100

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0105

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0110

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0115

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0120

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0125

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0130

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0135

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0140

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0145

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0150

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0155

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0160

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0165

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0170

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0099-1333(13)00111-0/rf0175

Factors Predicting the Importance of Libraries and Research Activities for Undergraduates

Methods
Instrument
Participants
Procedures
Measures
Demographic
Library and research skills development
College experience variables
Academic engagement and faculty interactions
Libraries and research opportunities satisfaction
Academic major and career aspirations
Importance of libraries and research activities
Factor analysis

Results
Limitations
Discussion and Implications
Recommendations
Conclusion
References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Reading respond ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now