- Email: [email protected]
Undergraduate use of government documents in the social sciences
Government Publications Review, Vol. 13, pp. 415-430, 1986 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
0277-9390/86 $3.00 + .OO Copyright 0 1986 Pergamon Journals Ltd
UNDERGRADUATE USE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES CHRISTOPHER
DOCUMENTS
W. NOLAN
Coordinator of Bibliographic Instruction, General Reference Dept., Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA
Abstract-This study investigates the degree of use of government documents by undergraduates in three social science disciplines and considers the reasons for use and nonuse, as well as methods of access to these materials. The results indicate that the frequency of document use was highest among political science students and lowest among history students, and that use was more frequent among seniors and juniors than freshmen and sophomores. Faculty members were seen to present the greatest influence in encouraging the students to use documents. Appropriate considerations for bibliographic instruction are inferred from these results and from responses suggesting typical methods of access to documents made by students.
INTRODUCTION
In these times of budgetary uncertainty, librarians have been forced to look closely at the degree to which their services and collections are effectively meeting user needs. Government publications, though often a relatively small expense in terms of acquisitions budgets, require considerable allocations for space, staff time, and secondary source purchases. Attempts to study the actual use of these resources, however, have not been extensive. Within the context of academic depository libraries-the largest and most prevalent type of documents collections - only faculty use has received detailed study [ 11. Students, often assumed to be marginal users, have not been the subject of any published study concerning their use patterns, despite calls for such research by documents scholars [2]. The purpose of this paper is to report and analyze the results of a study of undergraduate student use of a depository collection. This research was conducted at the Honnold Library of the Claremont Colleges, a federal depository. A mail questionnaire was sent to a sample of 302 students out of a total 659 undergraduates majoring in political science, history, and economics. These disciplines were selected because of the presence of published faculty studies in these areas and the popularity of these majors at the Colleges. Two additional mailings brought the response rate up to 199 students, about 66% of the original sample. Hypotheses concerning anticipated use of documents were generated. The data were coded for statistical analysis in order to test these hypotheses. Results indicate that there is considerable student use of the documents collection, although much variation exists in the amount of use, reasons for use and nonuse, means of The author would like to acknowledge the guidance of John V. Richardson, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, UCLA, in designing this study. Christopher Nolan was formerly Reference/Instruction Librarian at the University of California, Los Angeles. 415
416
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
access, and indexes used according to year in school and academic major. Critical factors, such as faculty influence, are shown to affect significantly the types of student use. Suggestions are made for improving the use of the documents collection by students and making library instruction more effective. Definitions Use factors considered in this study include frequency, reasons for use or nonuse, sources for citations, indexes consulted, and methods of access. “Use” refers to any self-reported employment of government publications for meeting information needs, whether the items were circulated, read cover-to-cover, or used to find a single statistic or citation. Use includes, but does not assume, successful use. “Government publication” refers to any printed matter published at government expense, including any level or type of governmental body. Student factors considered here include major and class. All students receiving questionnaires were undergraduates listed by their schools as being majors in political science, economics, or history. Students were asked to identify their class (or year in school, i.e., freshman through senior) as of their last completed semester. Background characteristics The documents collection in the Honnold Library system was chosen for this study largely because it is quite representative of the typical depository library. Like the average depository, the Honnold documents department is part of an academic institution; has one professional documents librarian; has limited subject access in the card catalog; circulates its documents; houses almost all its documents separately from the main collection, shelved by Superintendent of Documents number; and has not cataloged most documents using computer technologies (e.g., OCLC). Course-integrated bibliographic instruction is presented occasionally by the documents librarian, largely to political science and international studies students. The Colleges (Claremont McKenna, Pomona, Pitzer, Scripps, and Harvey Mudd), taken together, typify depository institutions in both size of student body (about 5000) and in highest degree offered (Ph.D.) [3]. The differences between this library and the typical depository include its higher selection rate for depository item numbers @O-90% versus 40-50% for the mean), more support staff (two full-time clerks versus one full-time for the mean), an earlier date of achieving depository status (1913), and its location on a private rather than public campus. However, the overall characteristics provide a largely representative setting for the study. HYPOTHESES
Based on earlier studies of faculty use, several hypotheses were proposed for expected student use of government publications. The null hypotheses are stated here in the usual negative form. Hl. There is no statistically significant correlation between students’ frequency of library use and frequency of document use. H2. The frequency of using government publications is not statistically significant when measured against a student’s (a) major or (b) class. H3. The reasons for infrequent or nonuse of government publications have no statistically significant relationship to a student’s (a) major, (b) class, or (c) frequency of document use.
Undergraduate
use of government documents
417
H4. The reasons for using documents have no statistically significant relationship to a student’s (a) major or (b) class. H5. The methods that students use to access government documents do not differ in a statistically significant manner relative to a student’s (a) major or (b) class. H6. The use of indexing and abstracting publications does not differ in a statistically significant manner for students in different (a) majors or (b) classes. METHODOLOGY
The sample population was chosen from three out of the five undergraduate colleges in the Claremont cluster [4]. Each of the three schools is a coeducational, private, selective institution with an enrollment of approximately 1000. The dean of students at each school agreed to the study and provided a list of all students belonging to the three specified majors. The total number of students majoring in all of these three social sciences was 659. For a population of this size, statistical indications were that at least 28% of the universe should be contained in the sample to achieve 99% confidence in the representativeness of the sample [5]. In order to provide sufficient results for statistical analysis, the chosen sample finally included 302 students, or 45.8% of the sample’s universe. Members were chosen by a simple random sample. The profile of this sample came within one percent of the profile of the entire population. The questionnaire developed for this study was influenced by that designed by Peter Hernon for faculty studies (see Appendix) [6]. Consisting mostly of close-ended questions, it contained eight questions about student characteristics and reported use patterns. A pretest enabled several particular concerns of students to be included. Reluctance on the part of some students to return the questionnaire was anticipated, and several procedures were followed to maximize response rate. The questionnaire was kept short. It started with status questions which all students could fill out, thus attempting to get the students involved by the time more complex questions arose. Cover letters were somewhat personalized by sending a different form letter to each group of majors, emphasizing the importance of responses from their own major. The addressed return envelope included with the letter could be sent through campus mail to facilitate handling. Finally, the questionnaire and cover letters were printed on colored paper, with the hope that they would be more eye-catching. Each follow-up cover letter was a different color to emphasize that it was, in fact, a different letter. The questionnaire was sent to all 302 students in February, 1984. Each was coded with a number to allow identifications of respondents and nonrespondents. (Confidentiality was assured in the cover letter.) Nonrespondents received a second questionnaire with a new cover letter after two weeks, and a third mailing was sent after another two weeks. The returned forms were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) [7]. Relationships of variables contained in the formal hypotheses as well as many other possible associations were measured principally through chi-square analysis. The level of significance for chi-square was set at .05. Out of the 302 members of the sample, 199 returned completed questionnaires, a return rate of 65.9%. Of the returned forms, 130 or 65.3% were returned from the first mailing, 52 or 26.1% from the second, and 17 or 8.5% from the third. An additional mailing obviously possessed little potential for further responses. Economics students made up the largest portion of the returns by major, 59.8%; by class, seniors and juniors each made up a little over 30% of the returns. Chi-square analysis was used to determine the likelihood of significant differences existing
418
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
among students who returned their questionnaires before and after the follow-up letters. The analysis showed no statistically significant differences between major and which mailing was returned, class and mailing, or document use and mailing. In fact, for the latter two pairs, the level of significance approached 1.OO,indicating a very low likelihood of an association. Since the least-willing respondents, those from the later two mailings, used documents just as often as the prompter students, it is quite possible that the nonrespondents are not much different in their use of documents. It is unlikely, of course, that they would be greater users, since they appear less interested in the subject of the survey. But even allowing for somewhat less frequent use by nonrespondents, these results can be accepted as representative for the population studied. RESULTS Library use
The estimated number of times that the students had used the resources of the library collections during the past academic year ranged from 0 to 300 times (second highest amount was 100). Only 2% of the students had not used the library, while 55.3% had used it from one to ten times and another 42.7% used it more than ten times. The median for use was 9.94 times, the mode was ten. Document
use
The estimated use of documents ranged from 0 to 205 (although the second highest amount was only 40). Overall, documents use was consistently less than library use. About 32% reported zero uses, 38% between one and three uses, and 30% used documents more than three times. Use stayed near the lower end of the scale, however, with the median at 0.92 times per year and the mode, zero. Library use tended to be about one order of magnitude larger than document use. A few students wrote that, although they had not used documents this last year, they had used them in the past. It should be noted in the following sections that students could respond to any question with any or all of the possible options, thus percentage totals add to more than 100% in almost all cases.
Table
1. Document
Use by Majors
and by Classes
% of Major
% of Class
Econ.
Pal. Sci.
Hist.
Fr.
so.
Jr.
Sr.
None
37.0
9.8
51.7
60.6
37.8
31.1
16.4
Light (1-3 times/yr.)
37.8
47.1
24.1
33.3
35.1
41.0
38.8
Heavy (4 or more times/yr.)
25.2
43.1
24.1
6.1
27.0
21.9
44.8
Document
Use/Yr.
Major (juniors/seniors) by use: .$ (3,3) = 15.04, p > ,005 Class by use: x2 (3,4) = 25.66, p > .OOl
Undergraduate
419
use of government documents
Reasons for infrequent or nonuse As Table 2 illustrates, “not required for classes” was the overwhelming reason reported for nonuse or little use of government publications. Substantial numbers of students also checked “unfamiliar with arrangement, ” “not worth the effort,” and “nothing in documents is valuable to me.” Few students were unaware of the existence of these resources, while even fewer obtained personal copies or went to another library. Very few students thought that the unhelpfulness of the documents staff caused them to avoid heavy use. Reasons for choosing documents as a source Table 3 shows that over half of the respondents “knew” that government publications would be a good source for meeting their needs. The next four reasons were all in the same general range of percentages: “recommended by faculty,” “cited in the literature,” “required by faculty,” and “discovered in card catalog”; “recommended by librarian” was checked by only 8% of the respondents. Most students checked more than one response. Methods for locating documents This question was designed to find out how students found the documents, once they decided what they wanted. Most frequently used were two resources immediately available in the documents area: the documents librarian and the documents card catalog (see Table 4). The reference librarian was consulted by over one-third of the respondents, even though the central reference area was in another wing of the library building. Browsing was used by only 26.6% of the students as a locating method. Surprisingly, in terms of the small percentage of Table 2. Reasons for Infrequent or Non-use of Government Publications Percentage of Students Checking Response Fr.
SO.
Jr.
Sr.
Total
% Yes
Not required for class
84.8
61.6
57.4
32.8
111
55.8
Unfamiliar with arrangement
33.3
32.4
32.8
29.9
63
31.7
Not worth the effort to find
9.1
16.2
21.3
31.3
43
21.6
Govt. publishes nothing of value for me
9.1
18.9
16.4
22.4
35
17.6
Unaware of such materials
9.1
16.2
14.8
1.5
23
11.6
Little help from librarians
6.1
5.4
6.6
10.4
15
7.5
Obtain personal copies
6.1
0.0
1.6
14.9
13
6.5
Rely on other libraries
0.0
0.0
3.3
14.9
12
6.0
Reason
Note: columns do not add to 100%. as multiple responses per student were permitted.
420
CHRISTOPHER Table 3. Reasons
W. NOLAN
for Use by Majors
and by Classes
% of Major Reasons for Use
% of Class
Econ.
P.S.
Hist.
Fr.
so.
Jr.
Sr.
49.6
64.1
41.4
15.2
48.6
51.4
61.2
29.4
43.1
6.9
9.1
32.4
24.6
43.3
Cited in literature
22.7
41.2
27.6
6.1
18.9
24.6
47.8
Required
for class
19.3
27.5
24.1
12.1
32.4
26.2
17.9
Discovered in card catalog during subject search
10.1
45.1
13.8
15.2
18.9
16.4
23.9
6.7
15.7
0.0
3.0
10.8
4.9
11.9
Knew they were valuable Recommended faculty
by
Recommended librarian
by
Note: columns
do not add to loO%, as multiple
responses
per student
were permitted.
documents listed in the library’s main card catalog, over 20% attempted to locate the desired documents in it. Index and abstract use Overall, almost one-half of the students used indexes or abstracts to find government publications of interest. But out of the eleven major indexing publications listed as options, only five received use by even 10% of the undergraduates (see Table 5). Index to U.S. Government Periodicals was the most used tool, at 30.7%, with CIS Index, PALS, American Statistics Index, and UNDOC the other primary tools. The Monthly Catalog was used by only
Table 4. Methods
of Access by Majors
and by Classes
% of Major Methods of Access
% of Class
Econ.
P.S.
Hist.
Fr.
so.
Jr.
Sr.
Ask documents librarian
43.7
51.0
20.7
9.1
43.2
34.4
65.7
Documents
36.1
45.1
27.6
24.2
37.8
32.8
46.3
Ask reference librarian
30.3
41.2
27.6
12.1
29.7
41.0
37.3
Browse stacks
20.2
39.2
31.0
12.1
27.0
26.2
34.3
Main library catalog
18.5
23.5
24.1
21.2
21.6
21.3
17.9
catalog
Note: columns
do not add to lOO%, as multiple
responses
per student
were permitted.
Undergraduateuse of governmentdocuments
421
Table 5. Indexesby Major % of RespondentsusingIndexes Index
Pol. Sci.
Total users
Econ.
Hist.
N
% Yes
Index to U.S. Govt. Periodicals
49.0
26.1
17.2
61
30.7
CIS Index
31.4
13.4
6.9
34
17.1
PAIS
21.6
10.1
13.8
27
13.6
American Statistics Index
11.8
16.0
3.4
26
13.1
UNDOC
13.7
10.1
3.4
20
10.1
Monthly Catalog of U.S. Govt. Pubs.
15.7
7.6
3.4
18
9.0
Govt. Reports Annual Index
9.8
9.2
6.9
18
9.0
California State Pubs.
5.9
2.5
3.4
7
3.5
ERIC (R.I.E.)
5.9
0.8
3.4
5
2.5
Monthly Checklist of State Pubs.
2.0
3.4
0.0
5
2.5
Index to Current Urban Documents
0.0
0.0
3.4
1
.5
68.6%
43.7%
37.9%
Total Users
98
49.2%
9’70, a surprisingly low amount, and the state and municipal indexes were almost uniformly ignored. (Publications Reference Fife was unfortunately omitted from the questionnaire. However, no student mentioned the use of PRF, and the documents librarian confirmed its very infrequent use by students.) When indexes were used, students usually remembered using a small number; only 7% of the students checked more than three indexes. Testing the hypotheses Two points must preface the discussion of hypotheses. First, in order to carry out chisquare analysis, document use had to be collapsed into groups which allowed for a minimum number of cases per cell (usually five). It was determined that three groups would be the most which would still permit accurate calculations: these were labeled “nonusers,” “light,” and “heavy” users. The break between light and heavy was determined by creating the two most equally sized groups; since the median for all users was 3.028, the groups became “one to three” and “four and higher” [8]. Second, several results showed that the variable “class” may have been a hidden factor in tables purporting to show a statistically significant relationship between major and another variable. Consequently, for any relationships which showed an association of both class and
422
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
major with another variable, the tables for major were recalculated with the results controlled by class. I have noted below whenever such elaboration analysis indicated a different interpretation of the measured relationship. Hl states that there is no statistically significant correlation between students’ frequency of library use and frequency of document use. Since the amounts of document use and library use were given as ordinal variables, no collapsing of data was necessary. These two variables were run under SPSS procedure SCATTERGRAM to calculate the Pearson correlation. With library use independent and document use dependent, r = .836 (r2 = .699), indicating a high level of correlation between the two variables. That is, the more frequent users of the library are also more frequent users of documents. Thus, Hl is rejected. H2 states that the frequency of using government publications is not statistically significant when measured against a student’s (a) major or (b) class. However, class showed a statistically significant relationship with document use, with freshmen using them the least and seniors the most [ ,y* (3,4) = 25.66, p > .OOl]. The apparent strength of the relationship led to control for class when evaluating major. At the freshman/sophomore level, major’s effect was not statistically significant. However, at the upperclass level, major was significant [x2 (3,3) = 15.04, p > .005]. Political science students showed a considerably greater level of use than those in economics, who were greater users than history students. As Table 1 indicates, over half of the history students were nonusers, whereas only 37% of economics and less than 10% of political science students were nonusers. Thus, both variables show a relationship to amount of document use (major only among upperclass students), and both (a) and (b) of this hypothesis are rejected. H3 suggests that the reasons for infrequent or nonuse of government publications have no statistically significant relationship to a student’s (a) major, (b) class, or (c) frequency of document use. Looking at the results indicates that major does not appear to be a factor in choosing these reasons, except for “librarian not helpful.” History students were somewhat more likely to choose this option [x2 (2,3) = 6.19, p > .05]. “Not required” was lowest for political science, but this was not statistically significant. There were also general similarities in choices by class, with one notable exception. “Not required” showed a definite statistical relationship to class [x2 (2,4) = 27.72, p > .OOOl]. Table 2 illustrates how this variable dropped from a very high response of 84.8% for freshmen to only 32.8% for seniors (though it remained the seniors’ highest choice). Other variables, though generally showing a trend to increase by class, were not statistically significant. A statistically significant relationship is found between document use and the reasons “unfamiliar with arrangement,” “ not worth effort,” and “not required.” [For the latter, x2 (2,3) = 62.25, p > .OOOl,and the relationship is one of an increase in documents use tied to a decrease in checking “not required.“] For “unfamiliar” and “not worth effort,” however, light users had higher responses than nonusers or heavy users. Thus, H3 (no relationship exists) must be accepted for most conditions involving reasons for nonuse. Exceptions include responses indicating the association of “unhelpful librarian” with major, “not required” with class, and “unfamiliar with arrangement,” “not worth effort,” and “not required” with amount of documents use. H4 asserts that the reasons for using documents have no statistically significant relationship to a student’s (a) major or (b) class. For this hypothesis, each response on the questionnaire was correlated with major and then class. “Required by faculty” was the only response not significantly related to class or major; but it remained a frequent reason for all groups. “Recommended by faculty” was statistically significant both by class [x2 (2,4) = 13.50, p > .005] and by major for juniors and seniors only [x’ (3,2) = 6.51, p )> .05]. This reason was checked most often by political science students and by upperclass students (see Table 3).
Undergraduate
use of government documents
423
“Recommended by librarian,” though not a major response, had a statistically significant association with major (political science again highest). “Discovered in catalog during subject search” was also associated with major [x’ (2,3) = 28.50, p > .OOOl], with political science students four times as likely as the others to check this. The number of students who “knew government publications would be a good source,” as expected, was statistically significant when correlated with class; students indicated more selfconfidence as their education progressed [x2 (2,4) = 24.99, p > .OOOl].It was not significant by major. “Cited in literature” was not associated with major, but was statistically significant among classes, as seniors again were most likely to report this reason [x2 (2,4) = 22.58, p > .OOOl]. Thus, the hypothesis can be accepted only for the variable “required by faculty.” Each of the other options is found to be associated with either class or major and the hypothesis must be rejected in regard to them. HS contends that the methods that students use to access government documents do not differ in a statistically significant manner relative to a student’s (a) major or (b) class. Two of the methods had no statistically significant relation to major or class, namely, “documents catalog” and “library card catalog.” The rest of the options did demonstrate some association. “Ask documents librarian,” the first-ranked choice, showed a solid association with class, increasing greatly as class increased [x2 (2,4) = 3 1.44, p > .OOOl].It also showed a significant relationship with major for upperclass students [x2 (2,3) = 6.81, p > .05], but not freshmen and sophomores. A similar choice, “ask reference librarian,” was not statistically significant by major but was significant for class, again showing an increase during the later years in school [x2 (2,4) = 9.03, p > .05]. The other response that conflicted with the null hypothesis was “browsing.” A significant difference existed between the more frequent browsers- political science and history students -and those who browsed much less, the economics students [x2 (2,3) = 6.97, p > .05]. Thus, HS(a) should be rejected for “browse” and “ask documents librarian” (upperclass only), while HS(b) is rejected for the options which reported asking any librarians. H6 states that the use of indexing and abstracting publications does not differ in a statistically significant manner for students in different (a) majors or (b) classes. Index use was not particularly high, thus breaking it down by major or class often resulted in insufficient data for analysis. Use of the Index to U.S. Government Periodicals was statistically significant by major for juniors and seniors only, but this difference was substantial; political science students were much greater users of this broad-scope index [x2 (3,2) = 10.68, p > .005]. CZS Index followed the same pattern, except that the association was significant for underclass students as well [x2 (2,3) = 10.59, p > .005]. The only index showing a definite association with class was PAZS, which showed a very strange pattern of use. Seniors used it twice as much as freshmen and sophomores, who used it twice as much as juniors [x’ (2,4) = 12.60, p > .Ol]. Due to either no recognizable association or lack of sufficient positive responses for statistical validity, the hypothesis must be accepted in regard to the other indexes. DISCUSSION The frequency of document use was not as low as one might have expected. Faculty studies show only slightly higher levels of use, although more faculty fall into the heavy category of use than did these students [9]. It must be remembered that some self-reporting bias may be present; students may not wish to admit that they have never or seldom used some sources. But few students estimated large numbers; thus any exaggeration in reporting appears
424
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
minor. Library use also tended to stay at moderate levels in the estimates. The high correlation between library and document collection use suggests that students do not make special use of the government publications collection and forsake the rest of the library. The differences reported above for H2 indicate that both major and class are tied to the amount of document use. Increases in conjunction with higher class standing are not surprising; students use a greater variety of sources as they further their education. The relationship of major to use is more interesting. Studies of faculty in the social sciences have shown that economics and political science departments are the two most frequent users of documents [lo]. History faculty vary, according to their emphasis; American historians can find large amounts of primary sources in government publications. But overall, history faculty have been less frequent users. This survey substantially agrees with these faculty studies. Political science students make the most frequent use of documents, economics students considerably less. History students are far less likely to use them. Year in school is very important in conjunction with major. The differences among majors do not achieve a truly significant level until the junior year, and show the greatest variance among seniors. This may be explained by the course-related needs of the students. As freshmen and sophomores, most students in any discipline read much from textbooks and reserved readings chosen by the instructor. Upper division courses, on the other hand, begin to offer specialized readings, allow more choices of primary and secondary materials, and often require research. During the later years, students become more aware of the choices of information resources available in the library, including government publications. Supporting this reasoning were the responses to the question on reasons for infrequent or nonuse of documents. The key answer here was “not required for classes.” This answer was independent of major, but strongly associated with class. The affirmative response to this answer dropped considerably as class standing increased toward senior. At that point, the reasons which received almost as much response, “unfamiliar with arrangement” and “not worth the effort,” both originated in attempts to use the materials. These attempts were not always successful. A considerable number of users never figured out how documents should be obtained. The findings showed that “unfamiliar” and “not worth the effort” were more likely to be the answers of light users than heavy. Thus some suspicion must be cast on the arrangements for document classification and the provision of cataloging and indexing, since these do not seem clear to a substantial number of the students. The library staff was not considered a hindrance by students, with the exception of a few history students. However, history students were also those least likely to ask for help from a librarian; their appraisal of librarians may be based more on conjecture than fact from actual encounters. They were also far less likely to have received formal instruction by the documents librarian. Few students said that they obtain documents outside their own library. Thus, the depository library can rightly feel that its clientele is there to be won or lost; if that institution and its related staff (including faculty) do not reach their patrons and promote what they can offer, students will most likely not use documents. The largest reported reason for choosing documents as a resource was “knew they would be valuable for my topic.” This answer was strongly related to class but not to major. Confidence in using government publications increased with class regardless of major. This may have been merely the result of a developing sense of general self-confidence, or it could have been the effect of upperclass students having already used documents in the past and feeling more comfortable about using them in the future. Faculty influence in encouraging document use was well demonstrated in the results to H4. While both political science and economics students reported much faculty influence, none
Undergraduate
use of government documents
425
of the history underclass students and only 5% of the members of the upperclass told of any such recommendation by their faculty. Only 22% of the heavy users of documents indicated that they had received no faculty input, whereas 89% of the nonusers reported no input. Consequently, faculty requirements or recommendations to use documents figured very strongly in the actual use of these materials by their students. Political science juniors and seniors were the most likely to receive this input, whereas all history students and economics freshmen and sophomores received very little. Citations in the literature were also a relatively important reason for using documents (28% of students). Minor differences were noted by major, but there was a highly significant relationship between class and this answer. As expected, students follow up on citations more as they increase their reading in the literature of their major field. This trend fits the findings of faculty use studies, which show citations to be the principal source for discovering government publications [ 111. Researchers in any discipline tend to rely on the selfindexing nature of its literature. As Stephen Stoan points out, the footnote apparatus acts as a fine context-specific indexing system [ 121. Students learn this system as they advance in their disciplinary studies, which is at least one reason so many catalog studies show knownitem searches to predominate among subject experts. The failure of “recommended by librarian” to receive significant response is disappointing. This could be the result of either ineffective referrals by general library staff or perhaps the reluctance of students to approach the librarians. Among the lowest users of documents, history students, not a single respondent indicated this answer as a reason for use. Even among political science students, who were most likely to have been instructed by a librarian in their classes, only 15.7% checked this answer. One must wonder whether the separate location of the collection has caused both ignorance among many students of its possible relevance and also forgetfulness (or unfamiliarity) on the part of other library staff of the document collection’s value. Certainly, there is room in almost all academic libraries for nondocuments staff to receive education concerning the resources available in their depository collections. While the students appeared to be mostly homogeneous in their reasons for little or no use, reasons for use were spread over a larger number of responses. Users discovered the importance of documents through the conveyance of their faculty or the literature in their field. Apparently, political science faculty and their literature referred more to documents than did the other disciplines. Whereas H4 considered how students came to the realization that documents might be a good resource, HS dealt with how students obtained the materials they had decided would be useful. Unlike the previous questions in the survey, this one did not find a clear-cut preference. Queries directed at the documents librarian and reference librarian were first and third, respectively. Neither showed much association with major, but both were highly correlated with class. Students were more likely to ask for help from librarians the longer they had been in college, with this number rising to almost half the students by their senior year. They are thus different from faculty, who have been reported in earlier studies to be quite reticent in asking librarians for help [ 131. It would be illuminating to discover when and why the probability of asking librarians for help begins to decline; is it during graduate school, or after the professorial career begins? History students were most likely of the three majors to use the main library card catalog (which has only a few government publications) for access, they were second highest in browsing, and “asking the documents librarian” was their lowest choice. The conclusion that history students who attempt to use documents do so quite inefficiently is not difficult to make. They preferred to use the librarians and catalog outside the documents area or to hunt for the items themselves rather than use the more appropriate resources in the documents de-
426
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
partment itself. One can only surmise that lack of faculty input had affected their search patterns. This echoes the findings of Rundell, a historian, who found that most history faculty considered documents confusing and omitted teaching their graduate students about them [ 141. By class, users became more willing to seek help, and perhaps more sophisticated, as they progressed in school. Whereas only about 10% of the freshmen users asked the documents librarian and 12% asked the reference librarian, two-thirds of the seniors had asked the former and over one-third the latter. On the other hand, seniors were least likely of all students to use the main card catalog to find documents and most likely to use the documents card catalog. At the very least, they were searching more efficiently than other classes. Indexes to government publications were treated in a separate question from that of access, both because they represent a somewhat different type of access (e.g., the home library’s holdings and location of its indexed materials are not usually available within the source) and because it was desired to see more closely what types of indexes were used. Major indexes from various levels of government were included so that comparisons could be made about the importance of these levels for student research. Looking at Table 5, it is obvious that the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications is not as important to students as it may be to documents librarians. It was the fourth most used index by political science students, but overall it ranked sixth. Interestingly, nonusers who checked which indexes they had tried used the Monthly Catalog more often than did.light users. Light users seemed almost oblivious of this reference tool, in spite of its being the most prominently displayed set in the documents area. Instead, the most heavily used index for all groups was the Index to U.S. Government Periodicals (ZUSGP). There was almost identical use of IUSGP among underclass and upperclass students. Apparently, this is one index that students learn about early in their academic careers and continue to use over the years. Hernon, who expected the Monthly Catalog to take precedence over the other indexes, also found ZUSGP to rank first among social science faculty. Part of its appeal can no doubt be found in its straightforward format; it is less complicated than the Monthly Catalog and is one of the few one-step documents tools. The popularity of the CZS Index, especially among political science students, was not surprising. The excellence of its indexing and the obvious political scope of its coverage make this a heavily used tool by political scientists. Other than PAZS and American Statistics Index, none of the other indexes received much reported use, nor were they significantly related to particular disciplines or classes. The federal indexes received much greater use than the other levels. Of the others, UNDOC received use by 10% of the students. However, the two state indexes were used by less than 5% of the undergraduates, and the single municipal index was used by one student. The documents librarian reported that use of documents in these latter areas was also quite low among students. Total number of indexes used by any individual was strongly associated with the frequency of document use (Cramer’s I/ = .515). Heavy users were much more likely to use multiple indexes than were light users. Among majors, 31% of political science students used three or more indexes, whereas only 15% of economics and 3.4% of history undergraduates did so. Among classes, freshmen were very infrequent users of indexes, but sophomores, juniors, and seniors all reported approximately the same range of users (50-60%). Among all students, slightly over half never used an index, while another 15% used only one. Only 1.5% used five or more of the listed indexes. (No student added any other indexes not listed on the form.) In summary, the principal index users were political science students, who seemed especially aware of two indexes that give good coverage of their discipline (and are also well used by political science faculty), while economics students trailed somewhat and history stu-
Undergraduate
use of government documents
421
dents were very low users. Overall, students found indexes more useful than do faculty, according to percentages given in faculty studies [15]. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that there is a considerable amount of documents use among social science students at the institution surveyed. Political science students, in particular, reported themselves to be relatively frequent users of government publications. The majority of economics students were also users of government documents. Slightly more than half of the history majors, however, indicated that they had not used these materials in the last year. While use was substantial, many students reported that using documents was either confusing or that the results were not worth the effort expended. The arrangement of this typical collection - open stacks, classified by Superintendent of Documents number - seemed unfamiliar to a large number of students. There is a need for ways to illustrate more clearly the methods used for classifying and arranging the collection. Political science students not only used the collection more, they used it more efficiently; and they were most likely to make use of aids within the document area. Basic levels of bibliographic instruction may have been received by many in this group, and they seem to be doing very well. However, many economics students and most history majors do not utilize the documents resources as well as they might. Of course, history does not always have as much need for government publications as the other two majors, especially non-U.S. studies. But librarians should offer instruction to develop better search patterns among these less frequent users. The largest single influence on student awareness of the value of documents, according to this survey’s results, is their faculty. Those students reporting that their faculty had referred them to government publications used these materials much more frequently. Previous faculty studies which have revealed economics and political science teachers to be the major users of documents help explain why students in those disciplines become more frequent users. These findings point to the importance of getting the faculty involved in any documents promotional efforts. Students respond better to faculty input than librarian influence, the data suggest. Freshmen and sophomores used documents much less frequently than their advanced counterparts. Overwhelmingly, they stated that they do not use documents simply because their classes do not require their use. Library instructors must note this finding. Although use might increase with bibliographic instruction efforts, it may be that these beginning students do not require much from documents; extensive instruction during the first year or two in school may be a waste of staff and student time. Perhaps bibliographic instruction would be more effective and efficient when directed at the upperclass students who have the most likelihood of needing the materials. Questions which allowed for some measurement of user frustration indicated that infrequent users experienced the most trouble using the collection. Since these users could be lost to future document use by their negative experiences, librarians should consider increasing their assistance to those who already have a sense of documents’ value. Of course, the low level of staffing assigned to most depository libraries in the country works against the provision of extensive public services [16]. Nonetheless, librarians did not figure much in students’ decisions to use or not to use government publications. Librarians were not perceived as a hindrance, but neither were they reported as frequently referring students to documents. They were remembered most for helping locate materials already determined to be desirable. This low profile of librarians should
428
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
be remedied, most certainly by gaining increased entrance into the early stages of the search process. Course-related instruction, combining visibility with faculty sanction, would appear most effective. Referrals from nondocuments staff were judged to be infrequent. Perhaps documents staff should offer other library staff periodic updates describing the valuable resources held in their collections. Higher visibility among faculty would also go a long way toward increasing student awareness. Citations from the literature continue to be seen as one of the most important sources for bibliographic searches. Librarians should be prepared to follow Stoan’s advice by explicitly describing the self-referencing nature of the professional literature to students, both during bibliographic instruction and individual reference sessions [ 171. This is especially important in documents, since most depositories have limited cataloging, at best, and index use has been shown here and in other studies to be insufficient. Further research is needed in the area of student use of government publications. This mail survey could be supplemented with interviews or unobtrusive methods. Data concerning the actual success students experience in using documents would be valuable. Evaluation of graduate students also presents a new area for research, as would studies of other majors. Although college students make up the largest potential group of academic library users, no published study to date has presented data on their use of documents. This study has provided information on the use of government publications by undergraduates in three of the social sciences. The findings indicate that these college students are significant users of the depository collection, though amount of use varies with academic major and class. Their patterns of use have some similarities with those of faculty, but reasons for use and nonuse, methods of access, and use of indexes reveal differences with their instructors. The findings here begin to develop a picture of undergraduate use of an important part of the academic library’s resources and indicate possible directions for increasing the efficiency, effectiveness, and frequency of that use. REFERENCES 1. Peter Hernon, Use of Government Publications by Social Scientists (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1979), pp. 22-26. 2. Hernon, p. 21; Terry L. Weech, “The Use of Government Publications: A Selected Review of the Literature,” Government Publications Review 5 (1978): 183. 3. George W. Whitbeck, Peter Hernon, and John Richardson, “The Federal Depository System: A Descriptive Analysis,” Government Publications Review 5 (1978): 253-268; and John V. Richardson, Dennis C.W. Frisch, and Catherine M. Hall, “Bibliographic Organization of U.S. Federal Depository Collections,” Governmenf Publications Review 7A (1980): 463-480. 4. Harvey Mudd College was omitted because it is almost purely a science school, while Scripps College gave indications it did not wish to participate. 5. Morris James Slonim, Sampling: A Quick, Reliable Guide to Practical Statistics (New York: Simon and Schuster. 1960). DD. 73-81. 6. Hernon,‘pp.~l40-149. 7. Norman H. Nie et al., SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975). 8. To verify that this break did not substantially affect the results, the programs were also run with categories as l-2 and 3 and higher uses; no significant differences were found. 9. Hernon, pp. 38-40. 10. Weech, p. 179. 11. Weech, p. 183. 12. Stephen K. Stoan, “Research and Library Skills: An Analysis and Interpretation,” College & Research Libraries 45 (March 1984): 99-109. 13. Dawn McCaghy and Gary R. Purcell, “Faculty Use of Government Publications,” College& Research Libraries 33 (January 1972): 10; Marilyn H. Wilson, “Faculty Use of Government Publications at Trinity University,” Texas Library Journal 49 (May 1973): 79. 14. Walter Rundell, Jr., In Pursuit of American History: Research and Training in the United States (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970), pp. 328, 330-31.
Undergraduate
use of government documents
429
15. Peter Hernon and Sara Lou Williams, “University Faculty and Federal Documents: Use Patterns,” Government Publications Review 3 (1976): 93-108. 16. Richardson et al., p. 469. 17. Stoan, p. 106.
GOVERNMENT
PUBLICATIONS
USE QUESTIONNAIRE
Background Information 1. Major (list all, if more than one): 2. As of the beginning of this semester, what is your class standing? junior freshman_ sophomore_ senior_ Library and Documents Use A government publication is any printed matter which has been published at government expense, or as required by law. Examples include publications of the Bureau of the Census, the Congressional Record, Statistical Abstract of the U.S., UNESCO documents, or any other materials from the legislative, judicial, or executive branches of any level of government, including federal, state, local, United Nations, or foreign. 3. Estimate how many times you used the resources of the libraries of the Claremont Colleges during the academic year 1983-84 (other than just as a study location): _ 4. Estimate how many times during the academic year 1983-84 you used government publications located in the libraries of the Claremont Colleges: 5. If you used government publications five times or less during the last year, please indicate why your use is infrequent (check as many as apply): __a. _b. _c. _d. _e. _f. _g. _h. __i.
government publishes little or nothing of value in my field unaware of the existence of such materials at the library unfamiliar with the arrangement of the government publications collection rely on government publications located in an off-campus library obtain personal copies of government publications the amount of time spent trying to find relevant information in government justified by the value of what I find the library staff provides little assistance in the use of government publications none of my classes have required the use of government publications other (please specify):
publications
is un-
6. What reasons cause you to look for government publications as a source for your information needs, if you use them (check as many as apply): _a. required reading for a class _b. recommended by faculty _c. recommended by a librarian _d. cited by an author in another publication _e. discovered via a subject search in the card catalog _f. knew government publications would be a good source for my topic _g. other (please specify):_ 7. When you look for government publications in the library, what methods do you use to locate them (check as many as apply): _a. ask the documents librarian _ b. ask the reference librarian _c. consult the card catalog in the documents collection _d. consult the main card catalog for the library _e. browse through the documents collection’s stacks _f. other (please specify):_ 8. Do you use any of the following indexes and guides in locating government information (check as many as apply): _a. American Statistics Index _b. California State Publications _c. CIS (Congressional Information Service) Index _d. ERIC Resources in Education _e. Government Reports Announcement & Index _f. Index to Current Urban Documents
on your subjects
CHRISTOPHER
430 _g. _h. _i. _j. _k. _I.
Index to U.S. Government Periodicals Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications Monthly Checklist of State Publications PAIS (Public Affairs Service Information) Bulletin UNDOC (United Nations Document Index) other (please specify):-
Please return completed questionnaire to: Christopher Nolan c/o School of Theology at Claremont Intercampus Mail Thank
W. NOLAN
you very much for your participation!
0277-9390/86 $3.00 + .OO Copyright 0 1986 Pergamon Journals Ltd
UNDERGRADUATE USE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES CHRISTOPHER
DOCUMENTS
W. NOLAN
Coordinator of Bibliographic Instruction, General Reference Dept., Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA
Abstract-This study investigates the degree of use of government documents by undergraduates in three social science disciplines and considers the reasons for use and nonuse, as well as methods of access to these materials. The results indicate that the frequency of document use was highest among political science students and lowest among history students, and that use was more frequent among seniors and juniors than freshmen and sophomores. Faculty members were seen to present the greatest influence in encouraging the students to use documents. Appropriate considerations for bibliographic instruction are inferred from these results and from responses suggesting typical methods of access to documents made by students.
INTRODUCTION
In these times of budgetary uncertainty, librarians have been forced to look closely at the degree to which their services and collections are effectively meeting user needs. Government publications, though often a relatively small expense in terms of acquisitions budgets, require considerable allocations for space, staff time, and secondary source purchases. Attempts to study the actual use of these resources, however, have not been extensive. Within the context of academic depository libraries-the largest and most prevalent type of documents collections - only faculty use has received detailed study [ 11. Students, often assumed to be marginal users, have not been the subject of any published study concerning their use patterns, despite calls for such research by documents scholars [2]. The purpose of this paper is to report and analyze the results of a study of undergraduate student use of a depository collection. This research was conducted at the Honnold Library of the Claremont Colleges, a federal depository. A mail questionnaire was sent to a sample of 302 students out of a total 659 undergraduates majoring in political science, history, and economics. These disciplines were selected because of the presence of published faculty studies in these areas and the popularity of these majors at the Colleges. Two additional mailings brought the response rate up to 199 students, about 66% of the original sample. Hypotheses concerning anticipated use of documents were generated. The data were coded for statistical analysis in order to test these hypotheses. Results indicate that there is considerable student use of the documents collection, although much variation exists in the amount of use, reasons for use and nonuse, means of The author would like to acknowledge the guidance of John V. Richardson, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, UCLA, in designing this study. Christopher Nolan was formerly Reference/Instruction Librarian at the University of California, Los Angeles. 415
416
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
access, and indexes used according to year in school and academic major. Critical factors, such as faculty influence, are shown to affect significantly the types of student use. Suggestions are made for improving the use of the documents collection by students and making library instruction more effective. Definitions Use factors considered in this study include frequency, reasons for use or nonuse, sources for citations, indexes consulted, and methods of access. “Use” refers to any self-reported employment of government publications for meeting information needs, whether the items were circulated, read cover-to-cover, or used to find a single statistic or citation. Use includes, but does not assume, successful use. “Government publication” refers to any printed matter published at government expense, including any level or type of governmental body. Student factors considered here include major and class. All students receiving questionnaires were undergraduates listed by their schools as being majors in political science, economics, or history. Students were asked to identify their class (or year in school, i.e., freshman through senior) as of their last completed semester. Background characteristics The documents collection in the Honnold Library system was chosen for this study largely because it is quite representative of the typical depository library. Like the average depository, the Honnold documents department is part of an academic institution; has one professional documents librarian; has limited subject access in the card catalog; circulates its documents; houses almost all its documents separately from the main collection, shelved by Superintendent of Documents number; and has not cataloged most documents using computer technologies (e.g., OCLC). Course-integrated bibliographic instruction is presented occasionally by the documents librarian, largely to political science and international studies students. The Colleges (Claremont McKenna, Pomona, Pitzer, Scripps, and Harvey Mudd), taken together, typify depository institutions in both size of student body (about 5000) and in highest degree offered (Ph.D.) [3]. The differences between this library and the typical depository include its higher selection rate for depository item numbers @O-90% versus 40-50% for the mean), more support staff (two full-time clerks versus one full-time for the mean), an earlier date of achieving depository status (1913), and its location on a private rather than public campus. However, the overall characteristics provide a largely representative setting for the study. HYPOTHESES
Based on earlier studies of faculty use, several hypotheses were proposed for expected student use of government publications. The null hypotheses are stated here in the usual negative form. Hl. There is no statistically significant correlation between students’ frequency of library use and frequency of document use. H2. The frequency of using government publications is not statistically significant when measured against a student’s (a) major or (b) class. H3. The reasons for infrequent or nonuse of government publications have no statistically significant relationship to a student’s (a) major, (b) class, or (c) frequency of document use.
Undergraduate
use of government documents
417
H4. The reasons for using documents have no statistically significant relationship to a student’s (a) major or (b) class. H5. The methods that students use to access government documents do not differ in a statistically significant manner relative to a student’s (a) major or (b) class. H6. The use of indexing and abstracting publications does not differ in a statistically significant manner for students in different (a) majors or (b) classes. METHODOLOGY
The sample population was chosen from three out of the five undergraduate colleges in the Claremont cluster [4]. Each of the three schools is a coeducational, private, selective institution with an enrollment of approximately 1000. The dean of students at each school agreed to the study and provided a list of all students belonging to the three specified majors. The total number of students majoring in all of these three social sciences was 659. For a population of this size, statistical indications were that at least 28% of the universe should be contained in the sample to achieve 99% confidence in the representativeness of the sample [5]. In order to provide sufficient results for statistical analysis, the chosen sample finally included 302 students, or 45.8% of the sample’s universe. Members were chosen by a simple random sample. The profile of this sample came within one percent of the profile of the entire population. The questionnaire developed for this study was influenced by that designed by Peter Hernon for faculty studies (see Appendix) [6]. Consisting mostly of close-ended questions, it contained eight questions about student characteristics and reported use patterns. A pretest enabled several particular concerns of students to be included. Reluctance on the part of some students to return the questionnaire was anticipated, and several procedures were followed to maximize response rate. The questionnaire was kept short. It started with status questions which all students could fill out, thus attempting to get the students involved by the time more complex questions arose. Cover letters were somewhat personalized by sending a different form letter to each group of majors, emphasizing the importance of responses from their own major. The addressed return envelope included with the letter could be sent through campus mail to facilitate handling. Finally, the questionnaire and cover letters were printed on colored paper, with the hope that they would be more eye-catching. Each follow-up cover letter was a different color to emphasize that it was, in fact, a different letter. The questionnaire was sent to all 302 students in February, 1984. Each was coded with a number to allow identifications of respondents and nonrespondents. (Confidentiality was assured in the cover letter.) Nonrespondents received a second questionnaire with a new cover letter after two weeks, and a third mailing was sent after another two weeks. The returned forms were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) [7]. Relationships of variables contained in the formal hypotheses as well as many other possible associations were measured principally through chi-square analysis. The level of significance for chi-square was set at .05. Out of the 302 members of the sample, 199 returned completed questionnaires, a return rate of 65.9%. Of the returned forms, 130 or 65.3% were returned from the first mailing, 52 or 26.1% from the second, and 17 or 8.5% from the third. An additional mailing obviously possessed little potential for further responses. Economics students made up the largest portion of the returns by major, 59.8%; by class, seniors and juniors each made up a little over 30% of the returns. Chi-square analysis was used to determine the likelihood of significant differences existing
418
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
among students who returned their questionnaires before and after the follow-up letters. The analysis showed no statistically significant differences between major and which mailing was returned, class and mailing, or document use and mailing. In fact, for the latter two pairs, the level of significance approached 1.OO,indicating a very low likelihood of an association. Since the least-willing respondents, those from the later two mailings, used documents just as often as the prompter students, it is quite possible that the nonrespondents are not much different in their use of documents. It is unlikely, of course, that they would be greater users, since they appear less interested in the subject of the survey. But even allowing for somewhat less frequent use by nonrespondents, these results can be accepted as representative for the population studied. RESULTS Library use
The estimated number of times that the students had used the resources of the library collections during the past academic year ranged from 0 to 300 times (second highest amount was 100). Only 2% of the students had not used the library, while 55.3% had used it from one to ten times and another 42.7% used it more than ten times. The median for use was 9.94 times, the mode was ten. Document
use
The estimated use of documents ranged from 0 to 205 (although the second highest amount was only 40). Overall, documents use was consistently less than library use. About 32% reported zero uses, 38% between one and three uses, and 30% used documents more than three times. Use stayed near the lower end of the scale, however, with the median at 0.92 times per year and the mode, zero. Library use tended to be about one order of magnitude larger than document use. A few students wrote that, although they had not used documents this last year, they had used them in the past. It should be noted in the following sections that students could respond to any question with any or all of the possible options, thus percentage totals add to more than 100% in almost all cases.
Table
1. Document
Use by Majors
and by Classes
% of Major
% of Class
Econ.
Pal. Sci.
Hist.
Fr.
so.
Jr.
Sr.
None
37.0
9.8
51.7
60.6
37.8
31.1
16.4
Light (1-3 times/yr.)
37.8
47.1
24.1
33.3
35.1
41.0
38.8
Heavy (4 or more times/yr.)
25.2
43.1
24.1
6.1
27.0
21.9
44.8
Document
Use/Yr.
Major (juniors/seniors) by use: .$ (3,3) = 15.04, p > ,005 Class by use: x2 (3,4) = 25.66, p > .OOl
Undergraduate
419
use of government documents
Reasons for infrequent or nonuse As Table 2 illustrates, “not required for classes” was the overwhelming reason reported for nonuse or little use of government publications. Substantial numbers of students also checked “unfamiliar with arrangement, ” “not worth the effort,” and “nothing in documents is valuable to me.” Few students were unaware of the existence of these resources, while even fewer obtained personal copies or went to another library. Very few students thought that the unhelpfulness of the documents staff caused them to avoid heavy use. Reasons for choosing documents as a source Table 3 shows that over half of the respondents “knew” that government publications would be a good source for meeting their needs. The next four reasons were all in the same general range of percentages: “recommended by faculty,” “cited in the literature,” “required by faculty,” and “discovered in card catalog”; “recommended by librarian” was checked by only 8% of the respondents. Most students checked more than one response. Methods for locating documents This question was designed to find out how students found the documents, once they decided what they wanted. Most frequently used were two resources immediately available in the documents area: the documents librarian and the documents card catalog (see Table 4). The reference librarian was consulted by over one-third of the respondents, even though the central reference area was in another wing of the library building. Browsing was used by only 26.6% of the students as a locating method. Surprisingly, in terms of the small percentage of Table 2. Reasons for Infrequent or Non-use of Government Publications Percentage of Students Checking Response Fr.
SO.
Jr.
Sr.
Total
% Yes
Not required for class
84.8
61.6
57.4
32.8
111
55.8
Unfamiliar with arrangement
33.3
32.4
32.8
29.9
63
31.7
Not worth the effort to find
9.1
16.2
21.3
31.3
43
21.6
Govt. publishes nothing of value for me
9.1
18.9
16.4
22.4
35
17.6
Unaware of such materials
9.1
16.2
14.8
1.5
23
11.6
Little help from librarians
6.1
5.4
6.6
10.4
15
7.5
Obtain personal copies
6.1
0.0
1.6
14.9
13
6.5
Rely on other libraries
0.0
0.0
3.3
14.9
12
6.0
Reason
Note: columns do not add to 100%. as multiple responses per student were permitted.
420
CHRISTOPHER Table 3. Reasons
W. NOLAN
for Use by Majors
and by Classes
% of Major Reasons for Use
% of Class
Econ.
P.S.
Hist.
Fr.
so.
Jr.
Sr.
49.6
64.1
41.4
15.2
48.6
51.4
61.2
29.4
43.1
6.9
9.1
32.4
24.6
43.3
Cited in literature
22.7
41.2
27.6
6.1
18.9
24.6
47.8
Required
for class
19.3
27.5
24.1
12.1
32.4
26.2
17.9
Discovered in card catalog during subject search
10.1
45.1
13.8
15.2
18.9
16.4
23.9
6.7
15.7
0.0
3.0
10.8
4.9
11.9
Knew they were valuable Recommended faculty
by
Recommended librarian
by
Note: columns
do not add to loO%, as multiple
responses
per student
were permitted.
documents listed in the library’s main card catalog, over 20% attempted to locate the desired documents in it. Index and abstract use Overall, almost one-half of the students used indexes or abstracts to find government publications of interest. But out of the eleven major indexing publications listed as options, only five received use by even 10% of the undergraduates (see Table 5). Index to U.S. Government Periodicals was the most used tool, at 30.7%, with CIS Index, PALS, American Statistics Index, and UNDOC the other primary tools. The Monthly Catalog was used by only
Table 4. Methods
of Access by Majors
and by Classes
% of Major Methods of Access
% of Class
Econ.
P.S.
Hist.
Fr.
so.
Jr.
Sr.
Ask documents librarian
43.7
51.0
20.7
9.1
43.2
34.4
65.7
Documents
36.1
45.1
27.6
24.2
37.8
32.8
46.3
Ask reference librarian
30.3
41.2
27.6
12.1
29.7
41.0
37.3
Browse stacks
20.2
39.2
31.0
12.1
27.0
26.2
34.3
Main library catalog
18.5
23.5
24.1
21.2
21.6
21.3
17.9
catalog
Note: columns
do not add to lOO%, as multiple
responses
per student
were permitted.
Undergraduateuse of governmentdocuments
421
Table 5. Indexesby Major % of RespondentsusingIndexes Index
Pol. Sci.
Total users
Econ.
Hist.
N
% Yes
Index to U.S. Govt. Periodicals
49.0
26.1
17.2
61
30.7
CIS Index
31.4
13.4
6.9
34
17.1
PAIS
21.6
10.1
13.8
27
13.6
American Statistics Index
11.8
16.0
3.4
26
13.1
UNDOC
13.7
10.1
3.4
20
10.1
Monthly Catalog of U.S. Govt. Pubs.
15.7
7.6
3.4
18
9.0
Govt. Reports Annual Index
9.8
9.2
6.9
18
9.0
California State Pubs.
5.9
2.5
3.4
7
3.5
ERIC (R.I.E.)
5.9
0.8
3.4
5
2.5
Monthly Checklist of State Pubs.
2.0
3.4
0.0
5
2.5
Index to Current Urban Documents
0.0
0.0
3.4
1
.5
68.6%
43.7%
37.9%
Total Users
98
49.2%
9’70, a surprisingly low amount, and the state and municipal indexes were almost uniformly ignored. (Publications Reference Fife was unfortunately omitted from the questionnaire. However, no student mentioned the use of PRF, and the documents librarian confirmed its very infrequent use by students.) When indexes were used, students usually remembered using a small number; only 7% of the students checked more than three indexes. Testing the hypotheses Two points must preface the discussion of hypotheses. First, in order to carry out chisquare analysis, document use had to be collapsed into groups which allowed for a minimum number of cases per cell (usually five). It was determined that three groups would be the most which would still permit accurate calculations: these were labeled “nonusers,” “light,” and “heavy” users. The break between light and heavy was determined by creating the two most equally sized groups; since the median for all users was 3.028, the groups became “one to three” and “four and higher” [8]. Second, several results showed that the variable “class” may have been a hidden factor in tables purporting to show a statistically significant relationship between major and another variable. Consequently, for any relationships which showed an association of both class and
422
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
major with another variable, the tables for major were recalculated with the results controlled by class. I have noted below whenever such elaboration analysis indicated a different interpretation of the measured relationship. Hl states that there is no statistically significant correlation between students’ frequency of library use and frequency of document use. Since the amounts of document use and library use were given as ordinal variables, no collapsing of data was necessary. These two variables were run under SPSS procedure SCATTERGRAM to calculate the Pearson correlation. With library use independent and document use dependent, r = .836 (r2 = .699), indicating a high level of correlation between the two variables. That is, the more frequent users of the library are also more frequent users of documents. Thus, Hl is rejected. H2 states that the frequency of using government publications is not statistically significant when measured against a student’s (a) major or (b) class. However, class showed a statistically significant relationship with document use, with freshmen using them the least and seniors the most [ ,y* (3,4) = 25.66, p > .OOl]. The apparent strength of the relationship led to control for class when evaluating major. At the freshman/sophomore level, major’s effect was not statistically significant. However, at the upperclass level, major was significant [x2 (3,3) = 15.04, p > .005]. Political science students showed a considerably greater level of use than those in economics, who were greater users than history students. As Table 1 indicates, over half of the history students were nonusers, whereas only 37% of economics and less than 10% of political science students were nonusers. Thus, both variables show a relationship to amount of document use (major only among upperclass students), and both (a) and (b) of this hypothesis are rejected. H3 suggests that the reasons for infrequent or nonuse of government publications have no statistically significant relationship to a student’s (a) major, (b) class, or (c) frequency of document use. Looking at the results indicates that major does not appear to be a factor in choosing these reasons, except for “librarian not helpful.” History students were somewhat more likely to choose this option [x2 (2,3) = 6.19, p > .05]. “Not required” was lowest for political science, but this was not statistically significant. There were also general similarities in choices by class, with one notable exception. “Not required” showed a definite statistical relationship to class [x2 (2,4) = 27.72, p > .OOOl]. Table 2 illustrates how this variable dropped from a very high response of 84.8% for freshmen to only 32.8% for seniors (though it remained the seniors’ highest choice). Other variables, though generally showing a trend to increase by class, were not statistically significant. A statistically significant relationship is found between document use and the reasons “unfamiliar with arrangement,” “ not worth effort,” and “not required.” [For the latter, x2 (2,3) = 62.25, p > .OOOl,and the relationship is one of an increase in documents use tied to a decrease in checking “not required.“] For “unfamiliar” and “not worth effort,” however, light users had higher responses than nonusers or heavy users. Thus, H3 (no relationship exists) must be accepted for most conditions involving reasons for nonuse. Exceptions include responses indicating the association of “unhelpful librarian” with major, “not required” with class, and “unfamiliar with arrangement,” “not worth effort,” and “not required” with amount of documents use. H4 asserts that the reasons for using documents have no statistically significant relationship to a student’s (a) major or (b) class. For this hypothesis, each response on the questionnaire was correlated with major and then class. “Required by faculty” was the only response not significantly related to class or major; but it remained a frequent reason for all groups. “Recommended by faculty” was statistically significant both by class [x2 (2,4) = 13.50, p > .005] and by major for juniors and seniors only [x’ (3,2) = 6.51, p )> .05]. This reason was checked most often by political science students and by upperclass students (see Table 3).
Undergraduate
use of government documents
423
“Recommended by librarian,” though not a major response, had a statistically significant association with major (political science again highest). “Discovered in catalog during subject search” was also associated with major [x’ (2,3) = 28.50, p > .OOOl], with political science students four times as likely as the others to check this. The number of students who “knew government publications would be a good source,” as expected, was statistically significant when correlated with class; students indicated more selfconfidence as their education progressed [x2 (2,4) = 24.99, p > .OOOl].It was not significant by major. “Cited in literature” was not associated with major, but was statistically significant among classes, as seniors again were most likely to report this reason [x2 (2,4) = 22.58, p > .OOOl]. Thus, the hypothesis can be accepted only for the variable “required by faculty.” Each of the other options is found to be associated with either class or major and the hypothesis must be rejected in regard to them. HS contends that the methods that students use to access government documents do not differ in a statistically significant manner relative to a student’s (a) major or (b) class. Two of the methods had no statistically significant relation to major or class, namely, “documents catalog” and “library card catalog.” The rest of the options did demonstrate some association. “Ask documents librarian,” the first-ranked choice, showed a solid association with class, increasing greatly as class increased [x2 (2,4) = 3 1.44, p > .OOOl].It also showed a significant relationship with major for upperclass students [x2 (2,3) = 6.81, p > .05], but not freshmen and sophomores. A similar choice, “ask reference librarian,” was not statistically significant by major but was significant for class, again showing an increase during the later years in school [x2 (2,4) = 9.03, p > .05]. The other response that conflicted with the null hypothesis was “browsing.” A significant difference existed between the more frequent browsers- political science and history students -and those who browsed much less, the economics students [x2 (2,3) = 6.97, p > .05]. Thus, HS(a) should be rejected for “browse” and “ask documents librarian” (upperclass only), while HS(b) is rejected for the options which reported asking any librarians. H6 states that the use of indexing and abstracting publications does not differ in a statistically significant manner for students in different (a) majors or (b) classes. Index use was not particularly high, thus breaking it down by major or class often resulted in insufficient data for analysis. Use of the Index to U.S. Government Periodicals was statistically significant by major for juniors and seniors only, but this difference was substantial; political science students were much greater users of this broad-scope index [x2 (3,2) = 10.68, p > .005]. CZS Index followed the same pattern, except that the association was significant for underclass students as well [x2 (2,3) = 10.59, p > .005]. The only index showing a definite association with class was PAZS, which showed a very strange pattern of use. Seniors used it twice as much as freshmen and sophomores, who used it twice as much as juniors [x’ (2,4) = 12.60, p > .Ol]. Due to either no recognizable association or lack of sufficient positive responses for statistical validity, the hypothesis must be accepted in regard to the other indexes. DISCUSSION The frequency of document use was not as low as one might have expected. Faculty studies show only slightly higher levels of use, although more faculty fall into the heavy category of use than did these students [9]. It must be remembered that some self-reporting bias may be present; students may not wish to admit that they have never or seldom used some sources. But few students estimated large numbers; thus any exaggeration in reporting appears
424
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
minor. Library use also tended to stay at moderate levels in the estimates. The high correlation between library and document collection use suggests that students do not make special use of the government publications collection and forsake the rest of the library. The differences reported above for H2 indicate that both major and class are tied to the amount of document use. Increases in conjunction with higher class standing are not surprising; students use a greater variety of sources as they further their education. The relationship of major to use is more interesting. Studies of faculty in the social sciences have shown that economics and political science departments are the two most frequent users of documents [lo]. History faculty vary, according to their emphasis; American historians can find large amounts of primary sources in government publications. But overall, history faculty have been less frequent users. This survey substantially agrees with these faculty studies. Political science students make the most frequent use of documents, economics students considerably less. History students are far less likely to use them. Year in school is very important in conjunction with major. The differences among majors do not achieve a truly significant level until the junior year, and show the greatest variance among seniors. This may be explained by the course-related needs of the students. As freshmen and sophomores, most students in any discipline read much from textbooks and reserved readings chosen by the instructor. Upper division courses, on the other hand, begin to offer specialized readings, allow more choices of primary and secondary materials, and often require research. During the later years, students become more aware of the choices of information resources available in the library, including government publications. Supporting this reasoning were the responses to the question on reasons for infrequent or nonuse of documents. The key answer here was “not required for classes.” This answer was independent of major, but strongly associated with class. The affirmative response to this answer dropped considerably as class standing increased toward senior. At that point, the reasons which received almost as much response, “unfamiliar with arrangement” and “not worth the effort,” both originated in attempts to use the materials. These attempts were not always successful. A considerable number of users never figured out how documents should be obtained. The findings showed that “unfamiliar” and “not worth the effort” were more likely to be the answers of light users than heavy. Thus some suspicion must be cast on the arrangements for document classification and the provision of cataloging and indexing, since these do not seem clear to a substantial number of the students. The library staff was not considered a hindrance by students, with the exception of a few history students. However, history students were also those least likely to ask for help from a librarian; their appraisal of librarians may be based more on conjecture than fact from actual encounters. They were also far less likely to have received formal instruction by the documents librarian. Few students said that they obtain documents outside their own library. Thus, the depository library can rightly feel that its clientele is there to be won or lost; if that institution and its related staff (including faculty) do not reach their patrons and promote what they can offer, students will most likely not use documents. The largest reported reason for choosing documents as a resource was “knew they would be valuable for my topic.” This answer was strongly related to class but not to major. Confidence in using government publications increased with class regardless of major. This may have been merely the result of a developing sense of general self-confidence, or it could have been the effect of upperclass students having already used documents in the past and feeling more comfortable about using them in the future. Faculty influence in encouraging document use was well demonstrated in the results to H4. While both political science and economics students reported much faculty influence, none
Undergraduate
use of government documents
425
of the history underclass students and only 5% of the members of the upperclass told of any such recommendation by their faculty. Only 22% of the heavy users of documents indicated that they had received no faculty input, whereas 89% of the nonusers reported no input. Consequently, faculty requirements or recommendations to use documents figured very strongly in the actual use of these materials by their students. Political science juniors and seniors were the most likely to receive this input, whereas all history students and economics freshmen and sophomores received very little. Citations in the literature were also a relatively important reason for using documents (28% of students). Minor differences were noted by major, but there was a highly significant relationship between class and this answer. As expected, students follow up on citations more as they increase their reading in the literature of their major field. This trend fits the findings of faculty use studies, which show citations to be the principal source for discovering government publications [ 111. Researchers in any discipline tend to rely on the selfindexing nature of its literature. As Stephen Stoan points out, the footnote apparatus acts as a fine context-specific indexing system [ 121. Students learn this system as they advance in their disciplinary studies, which is at least one reason so many catalog studies show knownitem searches to predominate among subject experts. The failure of “recommended by librarian” to receive significant response is disappointing. This could be the result of either ineffective referrals by general library staff or perhaps the reluctance of students to approach the librarians. Among the lowest users of documents, history students, not a single respondent indicated this answer as a reason for use. Even among political science students, who were most likely to have been instructed by a librarian in their classes, only 15.7% checked this answer. One must wonder whether the separate location of the collection has caused both ignorance among many students of its possible relevance and also forgetfulness (or unfamiliarity) on the part of other library staff of the document collection’s value. Certainly, there is room in almost all academic libraries for nondocuments staff to receive education concerning the resources available in their depository collections. While the students appeared to be mostly homogeneous in their reasons for little or no use, reasons for use were spread over a larger number of responses. Users discovered the importance of documents through the conveyance of their faculty or the literature in their field. Apparently, political science faculty and their literature referred more to documents than did the other disciplines. Whereas H4 considered how students came to the realization that documents might be a good resource, HS dealt with how students obtained the materials they had decided would be useful. Unlike the previous questions in the survey, this one did not find a clear-cut preference. Queries directed at the documents librarian and reference librarian were first and third, respectively. Neither showed much association with major, but both were highly correlated with class. Students were more likely to ask for help from librarians the longer they had been in college, with this number rising to almost half the students by their senior year. They are thus different from faculty, who have been reported in earlier studies to be quite reticent in asking librarians for help [ 131. It would be illuminating to discover when and why the probability of asking librarians for help begins to decline; is it during graduate school, or after the professorial career begins? History students were most likely of the three majors to use the main library card catalog (which has only a few government publications) for access, they were second highest in browsing, and “asking the documents librarian” was their lowest choice. The conclusion that history students who attempt to use documents do so quite inefficiently is not difficult to make. They preferred to use the librarians and catalog outside the documents area or to hunt for the items themselves rather than use the more appropriate resources in the documents de-
426
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
partment itself. One can only surmise that lack of faculty input had affected their search patterns. This echoes the findings of Rundell, a historian, who found that most history faculty considered documents confusing and omitted teaching their graduate students about them [ 141. By class, users became more willing to seek help, and perhaps more sophisticated, as they progressed in school. Whereas only about 10% of the freshmen users asked the documents librarian and 12% asked the reference librarian, two-thirds of the seniors had asked the former and over one-third the latter. On the other hand, seniors were least likely of all students to use the main card catalog to find documents and most likely to use the documents card catalog. At the very least, they were searching more efficiently than other classes. Indexes to government publications were treated in a separate question from that of access, both because they represent a somewhat different type of access (e.g., the home library’s holdings and location of its indexed materials are not usually available within the source) and because it was desired to see more closely what types of indexes were used. Major indexes from various levels of government were included so that comparisons could be made about the importance of these levels for student research. Looking at Table 5, it is obvious that the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications is not as important to students as it may be to documents librarians. It was the fourth most used index by political science students, but overall it ranked sixth. Interestingly, nonusers who checked which indexes they had tried used the Monthly Catalog more often than did.light users. Light users seemed almost oblivious of this reference tool, in spite of its being the most prominently displayed set in the documents area. Instead, the most heavily used index for all groups was the Index to U.S. Government Periodicals (ZUSGP). There was almost identical use of IUSGP among underclass and upperclass students. Apparently, this is one index that students learn about early in their academic careers and continue to use over the years. Hernon, who expected the Monthly Catalog to take precedence over the other indexes, also found ZUSGP to rank first among social science faculty. Part of its appeal can no doubt be found in its straightforward format; it is less complicated than the Monthly Catalog and is one of the few one-step documents tools. The popularity of the CZS Index, especially among political science students, was not surprising. The excellence of its indexing and the obvious political scope of its coverage make this a heavily used tool by political scientists. Other than PAZS and American Statistics Index, none of the other indexes received much reported use, nor were they significantly related to particular disciplines or classes. The federal indexes received much greater use than the other levels. Of the others, UNDOC received use by 10% of the students. However, the two state indexes were used by less than 5% of the undergraduates, and the single municipal index was used by one student. The documents librarian reported that use of documents in these latter areas was also quite low among students. Total number of indexes used by any individual was strongly associated with the frequency of document use (Cramer’s I/ = .515). Heavy users were much more likely to use multiple indexes than were light users. Among majors, 31% of political science students used three or more indexes, whereas only 15% of economics and 3.4% of history undergraduates did so. Among classes, freshmen were very infrequent users of indexes, but sophomores, juniors, and seniors all reported approximately the same range of users (50-60%). Among all students, slightly over half never used an index, while another 15% used only one. Only 1.5% used five or more of the listed indexes. (No student added any other indexes not listed on the form.) In summary, the principal index users were political science students, who seemed especially aware of two indexes that give good coverage of their discipline (and are also well used by political science faculty), while economics students trailed somewhat and history stu-
Undergraduate
use of government documents
421
dents were very low users. Overall, students found indexes more useful than do faculty, according to percentages given in faculty studies [15]. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that there is a considerable amount of documents use among social science students at the institution surveyed. Political science students, in particular, reported themselves to be relatively frequent users of government publications. The majority of economics students were also users of government documents. Slightly more than half of the history majors, however, indicated that they had not used these materials in the last year. While use was substantial, many students reported that using documents was either confusing or that the results were not worth the effort expended. The arrangement of this typical collection - open stacks, classified by Superintendent of Documents number - seemed unfamiliar to a large number of students. There is a need for ways to illustrate more clearly the methods used for classifying and arranging the collection. Political science students not only used the collection more, they used it more efficiently; and they were most likely to make use of aids within the document area. Basic levels of bibliographic instruction may have been received by many in this group, and they seem to be doing very well. However, many economics students and most history majors do not utilize the documents resources as well as they might. Of course, history does not always have as much need for government publications as the other two majors, especially non-U.S. studies. But librarians should offer instruction to develop better search patterns among these less frequent users. The largest single influence on student awareness of the value of documents, according to this survey’s results, is their faculty. Those students reporting that their faculty had referred them to government publications used these materials much more frequently. Previous faculty studies which have revealed economics and political science teachers to be the major users of documents help explain why students in those disciplines become more frequent users. These findings point to the importance of getting the faculty involved in any documents promotional efforts. Students respond better to faculty input than librarian influence, the data suggest. Freshmen and sophomores used documents much less frequently than their advanced counterparts. Overwhelmingly, they stated that they do not use documents simply because their classes do not require their use. Library instructors must note this finding. Although use might increase with bibliographic instruction efforts, it may be that these beginning students do not require much from documents; extensive instruction during the first year or two in school may be a waste of staff and student time. Perhaps bibliographic instruction would be more effective and efficient when directed at the upperclass students who have the most likelihood of needing the materials. Questions which allowed for some measurement of user frustration indicated that infrequent users experienced the most trouble using the collection. Since these users could be lost to future document use by their negative experiences, librarians should consider increasing their assistance to those who already have a sense of documents’ value. Of course, the low level of staffing assigned to most depository libraries in the country works against the provision of extensive public services [16]. Nonetheless, librarians did not figure much in students’ decisions to use or not to use government publications. Librarians were not perceived as a hindrance, but neither were they reported as frequently referring students to documents. They were remembered most for helping locate materials already determined to be desirable. This low profile of librarians should
428
CHRISTOPHER
W. NOLAN
be remedied, most certainly by gaining increased entrance into the early stages of the search process. Course-related instruction, combining visibility with faculty sanction, would appear most effective. Referrals from nondocuments staff were judged to be infrequent. Perhaps documents staff should offer other library staff periodic updates describing the valuable resources held in their collections. Higher visibility among faculty would also go a long way toward increasing student awareness. Citations from the literature continue to be seen as one of the most important sources for bibliographic searches. Librarians should be prepared to follow Stoan’s advice by explicitly describing the self-referencing nature of the professional literature to students, both during bibliographic instruction and individual reference sessions [ 171. This is especially important in documents, since most depositories have limited cataloging, at best, and index use has been shown here and in other studies to be insufficient. Further research is needed in the area of student use of government publications. This mail survey could be supplemented with interviews or unobtrusive methods. Data concerning the actual success students experience in using documents would be valuable. Evaluation of graduate students also presents a new area for research, as would studies of other majors. Although college students make up the largest potential group of academic library users, no published study to date has presented data on their use of documents. This study has provided information on the use of government publications by undergraduates in three of the social sciences. The findings indicate that these college students are significant users of the depository collection, though amount of use varies with academic major and class. Their patterns of use have some similarities with those of faculty, but reasons for use and nonuse, methods of access, and use of indexes reveal differences with their instructors. The findings here begin to develop a picture of undergraduate use of an important part of the academic library’s resources and indicate possible directions for increasing the efficiency, effectiveness, and frequency of that use. REFERENCES 1. Peter Hernon, Use of Government Publications by Social Scientists (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1979), pp. 22-26. 2. Hernon, p. 21; Terry L. Weech, “The Use of Government Publications: A Selected Review of the Literature,” Government Publications Review 5 (1978): 183. 3. George W. Whitbeck, Peter Hernon, and John Richardson, “The Federal Depository System: A Descriptive Analysis,” Government Publications Review 5 (1978): 253-268; and John V. Richardson, Dennis C.W. Frisch, and Catherine M. Hall, “Bibliographic Organization of U.S. Federal Depository Collections,” Governmenf Publications Review 7A (1980): 463-480. 4. Harvey Mudd College was omitted because it is almost purely a science school, while Scripps College gave indications it did not wish to participate. 5. Morris James Slonim, Sampling: A Quick, Reliable Guide to Practical Statistics (New York: Simon and Schuster. 1960). DD. 73-81. 6. Hernon,‘pp.~l40-149. 7. Norman H. Nie et al., SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975). 8. To verify that this break did not substantially affect the results, the programs were also run with categories as l-2 and 3 and higher uses; no significant differences were found. 9. Hernon, pp. 38-40. 10. Weech, p. 179. 11. Weech, p. 183. 12. Stephen K. Stoan, “Research and Library Skills: An Analysis and Interpretation,” College & Research Libraries 45 (March 1984): 99-109. 13. Dawn McCaghy and Gary R. Purcell, “Faculty Use of Government Publications,” College& Research Libraries 33 (January 1972): 10; Marilyn H. Wilson, “Faculty Use of Government Publications at Trinity University,” Texas Library Journal 49 (May 1973): 79. 14. Walter Rundell, Jr., In Pursuit of American History: Research and Training in the United States (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970), pp. 328, 330-31.
Undergraduate
use of government documents
429
15. Peter Hernon and Sara Lou Williams, “University Faculty and Federal Documents: Use Patterns,” Government Publications Review 3 (1976): 93-108. 16. Richardson et al., p. 469. 17. Stoan, p. 106.
GOVERNMENT
PUBLICATIONS
USE QUESTIONNAIRE
Background Information 1. Major (list all, if more than one): 2. As of the beginning of this semester, what is your class standing? junior freshman_ sophomore_ senior_ Library and Documents Use A government publication is any printed matter which has been published at government expense, or as required by law. Examples include publications of the Bureau of the Census, the Congressional Record, Statistical Abstract of the U.S., UNESCO documents, or any other materials from the legislative, judicial, or executive branches of any level of government, including federal, state, local, United Nations, or foreign. 3. Estimate how many times you used the resources of the libraries of the Claremont Colleges during the academic year 1983-84 (other than just as a study location): _ 4. Estimate how many times during the academic year 1983-84 you used government publications located in the libraries of the Claremont Colleges: 5. If you used government publications five times or less during the last year, please indicate why your use is infrequent (check as many as apply): __a. _b. _c. _d. _e. _f. _g. _h. __i.
government publishes little or nothing of value in my field unaware of the existence of such materials at the library unfamiliar with the arrangement of the government publications collection rely on government publications located in an off-campus library obtain personal copies of government publications the amount of time spent trying to find relevant information in government justified by the value of what I find the library staff provides little assistance in the use of government publications none of my classes have required the use of government publications other (please specify):
publications
is un-
6. What reasons cause you to look for government publications as a source for your information needs, if you use them (check as many as apply): _a. required reading for a class _b. recommended by faculty _c. recommended by a librarian _d. cited by an author in another publication _e. discovered via a subject search in the card catalog _f. knew government publications would be a good source for my topic _g. other (please specify):_ 7. When you look for government publications in the library, what methods do you use to locate them (check as many as apply): _a. ask the documents librarian _ b. ask the reference librarian _c. consult the card catalog in the documents collection _d. consult the main card catalog for the library _e. browse through the documents collection’s stacks _f. other (please specify):_ 8. Do you use any of the following indexes and guides in locating government information (check as many as apply): _a. American Statistics Index _b. California State Publications _c. CIS (Congressional Information Service) Index _d. ERIC Resources in Education _e. Government Reports Announcement & Index _f. Index to Current Urban Documents
on your subjects
CHRISTOPHER
430 _g. _h. _i. _j. _k. _I.
Index to U.S. Government Periodicals Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications Monthly Checklist of State Publications PAIS (Public Affairs Service Information) Bulletin UNDOC (United Nations Document Index) other (please specify):-
Please return completed questionnaire to: Christopher Nolan c/o School of Theology at Claremont Intercampus Mail Thank
W. NOLAN
you very much for your participation!