Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units

ACALIB-01701; No. of pages: 9; 4C: The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units Vera Lux a,⁎, Robert J. Snyder a,1, Colleen Boff b,2 a b

Jerome Library, Suite 152, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA Jerome Library, Suite 204, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 3 August 2015 Accepted 11 January 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Non-library units Learning commons Qualitative study Library use Library space Space study

a b s t r a c t This case study explores use patterns of an academic library following the addition of several non-library units. Of specific interest were the initial destinations of patrons, the number of destinations visited, and the primary purpose for coming to the library. We observed all destinations of patrons as they entered the building and administered an exit survey to gain additional insight into patrons' use of the library, including all first floor destinations visited and their primary purpose for visiting the library. We used selected statistics to further explore library use. Findings indicate that non-library units are a popular destination for library patrons but do not eclipse the overall use of library units; that the majority of patrons only visit one destination per trip to the library; and that the primary purposes for which patrons come to the library are studying and the use of library materials. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Libraries are increasingly being asked to provide space to other campus entities. This has necessitated that libraries “envision ways to open up space for these constituencies while still providing the spaces needed for more traditional library services” (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2015). In this study, we explored use patterns of an academic library following the addition of several non-library units through observing patron behaviors, seeking their perceptions through survey responses, and examining select library statistics. Over the past five years, our library has added several new units to the building as our campus has undergone several significant capital improvement projects. These projects have displaced dozens of offices, creating a domino effect of relocated services, classrooms, departments, etc., and resulting in every square inch of campus being examined for efficient and varied use of space. This has resulted in intensive scrutiny of campus buildings to determine efficient and varied use of space. In addition, the library has also been working toward being known as the campus academic hub—a place where students can go to get all the support they need to be academically successful. In part, the library has been seeking partners to expand our image as the academic hub, but

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 419 372 7897. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Lux), [email protected] (R.J. Snyder), [email protected] (C. Boff). 1 Tel.: +1 419 372 9442. 2 Tel.: +1 419 372 7899.

campus administrators have also been looking to the library to help solve space issues. The first floor of our library is the largest with approximately 90,000 sq ft, followed by the second floor with approximately 15,000 sq ft. Floors three through eight consist of slightly less than 10,000 sq ft per floor. As a consequence of such a large footprint, the first floor of the library has been the focus of interest and change in regard to the addition of campus spaces and services. In 2011, the library contracted with campus dining services to add a café to the first floor. That same year, we also collaborated with the Division of Enrollment Management to establish a Learning Commons in the library, uniting several academic support units formerly spread out across campus. Though the definition of a learning commons differs from institution to institution, on our campus it primarily means peer-to-peer tutoring. More specifically, the Learning Commons offers writing consultations, conducts math and statistics tutoring in a dedicated computer lab, and offers content tutoring in a variety of disciplines including chemistry, biology, sociology, and more. In addition to the Learning Commons, the library inherited a student technology help center from our central Information Technology Services (ITS) unit in 2013. We rebranded this operation as the Student Technology Assistance Center (STAC) and located it in a former classroom space. The café, Learning Commons, and STAC joined previously existing spaces and services in our building that do not necessarily have library-related functions, including classroom space (room 125) for semester-long classes and an additional ITS help desk staffed by an ITS student employee. Altogether, these spaces and services now occupy roughly a quarter of the first floor, with the possibility of additional

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004 0099-1333/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004

2

V. Lux et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

units to come. For the purpose of this study, we are making a distinction between these recently added units and library units. Library units, as we define them, are services, functions and spaces commonly associated with academic libraries such as reference and circulation desks, print collections (government documents, newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.), computers, copiers/scanners, and study spaces. Non-library units, in this case, include campus services and spaces moved into the building such as the Learning Commons, the STAC, the café, the ITS help desk, and the classroom used for semester-long courses. It is also important to understand that at our institution, all of these non-library units operate independently of each other and of the library even though they now reside in the library facility. Library services also function independently of these non-library services as well. Despite cross-unit collaboration, each unit has designated square footage as well as its own service desk, where appropriate. The purpose of this study is twofold. As we move more services into the library, we want to gather baseline data to determine if the reasons users come to the library facility change over time. We plan to replicate this study periodically. The other reason we conducted this research was to simply have a better understanding of which services, collections and spaces are being utilized on our heavily trafficked first floor. Our first floor provides the primary entrance and exit to the building and is the only floor in which we house a combination of library and nonlibrary related services and functions. Our primary research questions were: 1.) What is the initial destination of patrons as they enter the building? 2.) Do library users come to the library for more than one reason? 3.) What are the primary purposes for which patrons use the Library? LITERATURE REVIEW A variety of researchers have examined the ways in which students use the library space and interact with the library as a place, and written about the importance of the library as a physical space in the life and culture of the university (Brunsdale, 2000; Buschman & Leckie, 2007; Frade & Washburn, 2006). These articles tend to fall into one or more categories based on the purpose and design of the study, which we have categorized as being about the observation of the space, informational interviews with students, and information gathering based on a redesign of the library space. There are also a number of articles that deal primarily with navigation or movement in the library and other spaces (Bitgood, 2006; Hahn, 2011; Li & Klippel, 2012; Mandel, 2010), but we have excluded discussion of this topic as our study concerned the primary purpose and initial destination of our library visitors, and not the manner in which they navigated the space to arrive at their destination. Although much research has been done on the use of the various spaces within the library, we have not been able to identify observational studies of the initial destination of library visitors. A common theme in the library space literature is the use of a research study in order to guide the process of a redesign of the library's facilities. These studies use one or more methods to obtain information about the students' use of the space, and then apply the information gathered to customizing the space in ways that will be most beneficial to the habits and needs of the students they serve (Hobbs & Klare, 2010; Montgomery, 2011; Webb, Schaller, & Hunley, 2008). Many studies follow the ethnographic research methods outlined by Foster and Gibbons (2007), either through application of their methodology from an existing study or in consultation with Foster and Gibbons themselves (Hobbs & Klare, 2010). In a similar vein, Fox and Doshi (2013) observed and surveyed students after a redesign in order to assess the effect of the changes that were made to the space, hoping to confirm that it did indeed make a positive impact. Other studies have centered on an observation of student use of the library space without the framework of an imminent or recently completed redesign, but still with an eye toward understanding the

ways in which students utilize the various spaces within the library (Applegate, 2009; Bedwell & Banks, 2013; Bryant, Matthews, & Walton, 2009; Dotson & Garris, 2008; May & Swabey, 2015; Paretta & Catalano, 2013; Suarez, 2007). These observations were carried out in various ways, including seat counts at different times of the day and notes on the variety of study and/or social behaviors the students exhibited. The studies were geared toward helping the library staff understand the ways in which specific library spaces were being used, and whether this aligned with expected or intended use. Although unobtrusive observation of students and spaces in the library is one of the more common techniques for acquiring information about the use of the library's facilities, other studies have combined the observations with some sort of interview or direct feedback from students (Faletar Tanackovic, Lacović, & Gašo, 2014; Foster & Gibbons, 2007; Fox & Doshi, 2013; Hobbs & Klare, 2010; May & Swabey, 2015; Shoham & Roitberg, 2005; Webb et al., 2008), added observation data to statistics gathered from various service points (Scarletto, Burhanna, & Richardson, 2013), or skipped the observations altogether and instead relied on student feedback alone (Bailin, 2011; Yoo-Lee, Lee, & Velez, 2013). Van Beynen, Pettijohn, and Carrel (2010) combined a number of methods in order to paint a full picture of the student space use, examining gate and service desk counts, observation, focus groups, and pedestrian travel choices in order to maximize the efficiency of the design of the library and the placement of service points. After analyzing their results, they concluded that “future library design needs to strategize the high demand services and resources along the natural pathways” that students take in order to design an efficient space that conforms to the needs of students (p. 412). The literature on non-library units in academic libraries has highlighted potential benefits of bringing non-library units into library buildings. One suggested positive outcome is the potential for increased collaboration. In the introduction to their edited volume of case studies of convergence and collaboration among library and non-library and external services, Hernon and Powell (2008) wrote that “in effect, convergence creates new opportunities for the library, increases the number of campus players working within the library, and is a logical extension of library services” (p. 9). Schafer and Moore (2008) also reported collaboration between campus services within the university library as a positive outcome, stating “we are seen as the glue that reaches out, pulls people in, and supports them to create something new together for the benefit of students” (p. 124). Another proposed advantage is the potential for increased use of library buildings, although this has also raised concerns. According to Sennyey, Ross, and Mills (2009), external organizations and services might increase gate counts, but it should not be assumed that this will lead to an equivalent increase in the use of library services and materials. They emphasized the importance of coordination between nonlibrary and library services, lest the library risk becoming “nothing more than an office or classroom building whose management might best be left to a campus facilities manager” (p. 253). Similarly, Lippincott (2004) advocated for collaborative facilities as genuine partnerships that create value and better serve users, and stressed the importance of shared goals, planning, the valuing of expertise, and pooled resources between units. Shill and Tonner (2004) hypothesized that library buildings housing non-library units would see increased usage by attracting non-library users. However, they did not find “a significant relationship between the proportion of building space allocated for library functions and postproject usage levels” (p. 133). They found no types of non-library units that led to statistically significant increases in library usage, and concluded that there is no evidence that the presence of particular nonlibrary facilities has significant impact on library exit counts. There may be good reasons for including various nonlibrary facilities in a project, but there is no indication from this study that their presence has a

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004

V. Lux et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

significant impact, either positive or negative, on facility usage (p. 143). Shill and Tonner (2004) also examined the effect of general-use seating versus enhanced study spaces on facility usage. In commenting on the findings, Gayton (2008) noted that “because nonlibrary functions do not meaningfully increase library use, and because the presence of quality study spaces does, it would be more fruitful for academic libraries to devote their limited resources to improving and expanding communal study space” (p. 64). King, Wilson Buss, Cohen, Stanley, and White (2008) also noted the important role of study space in a newly created shared facility at The University of Georgia. They found that the top student uses of this new facility were group and individual study, and that students tended to see that building as a “space” rather than a library. Notably, the creation of the combined facility did not decrease use of the two other existing campus libraries. The discussion of non-library units is complicated by the lack of defined terminology. Lippincott (2004) noted that there is not a shared understanding of what are considered non-library units, and that “it is not a given that all of these should be characterized as ‘non-library’ as some could be collaborative endeavors or some could be library run” (p. 149). As Turner, Welch, and Reynolds (2013) noted, common terms and definitions of these new spaces have not yet emerged, with most definitions focusing on learning spaces. However, our experience is that this trend is moving beyond learning spaces. As a result, we have chosen to use the terms non-library units and external services to indicate the breadth of campus entities that may now be located within library buildings. METHODS RESEARCH DESIGN The research design used in this study was primarily qualitative. We used multiple research methods to answer our research questions, including observations of patrons in the library, the administration of an exit-survey, and analysis of select statistics collected in the library. A qualitative research design was used because this approach can be useful for exploratory research and for gathering data about human behavior (Maxwell, 2013). The use of one research method would make the study vulnerable to bias, but an analysis drawn from multiple methodological approaches increases reliability. This approach of triangulating the data has been encouraged by qualitative researchers (Fielding & Fielding, 1986; Maxwell, 2013), and as Maxwell (2013) asserts, “this strategy reduces the risk of chance associations and of systematic biases due to a specific method, and allows a better assessment of the generality of the explanations that one develops” (p. 128). We chose observation and survey methods because the former method captures behaviors of patrons in a natural setting whereas the latter method specifically asks them to document their perceptions of their behaviors. Gorman and Clayton (2005) assert that one of the advantages to this approach is that “it has a ‘reality verifying’ character, whereby what people say they do can be compared with what they actually do” (p. 104). INSTRUMENTATION Prior to the beginning of our observation and exit survey research, we received Human Subject Review Board approval. In order to quickly collect our observation data, we created a form that listed all of the possible initial destinations. We loaded the form onto iPads and used them to collect data from three designated observation stations on the first floor of the library. For all of our data gathering, we used tabletspecific survey software, QuickTapSurvey, selected for its ease and speed of use. Destinations not included on the initial form were quickly added during observations through an available “other” field that allowed notation. Each of us spent several hours in the field using our

3

collection form to make sure that we were comfortable with the technology, that we were recording our observations in a consistent manner, and that our observation points worked as planned. Based on our trial, we made changes to both our observation locations and our data collection form to improve accuracy and consistency. We also constructed our exit survey using the QuickTapSurvey software and administered via iPads. We asked only two demographic questions: 1) the role of the patron (undergraduate, graduate, faculty), and 2) the patron's major. We then asked patrons three specific questions about their visit with us on the day they filled out the survey: 1) What floor was their initial destination in the library? 2) What were all the destinations they visited on the first floor of the library?, and 3) What was the primary purpose for their visit to the library? We tested the instrument with library student employees and staff to identify potential areas of confusion for respondents. Some of our respondents had difficulty in accurately selecting their area of study, so we provided a reference sheet that cross-listed all BGSU majors to our broader selection of areas of study during the exit-survey administration. We selected six dates during peak times of the fall semester based on gate counts from the previous fall. Our study took place during twohour blocks on each of the six dates between 1:30 pm and 6:00 pm, which represented peak use times. We conducted observations during the first hour and the exit survey was administered during the second hour each of the designated days. In total, we conducted 6 h of observations from three different stations on the first floor and collected survey data by the exit gates for 6 h throughout the semester. We also gathered statistics during the first hour of each block of time specifically for the reference desk. Our focus for the observation was intentionally limited to the first floor activity. We were each posted at one of three different spots on the first floor that provided us with the maximum range of sight line visibility for most of the first floor. All three of us could see the one and only entrance to the building, which was critical because the purpose of our observation was to see the initial destination of those entering the Library. Two of us administered the exit survey at the exit gates with iPads. Most respondents were able to complete the survey in less than 1 min. Patrons were given access to the consent form to read and received candy once the survey was completed. Patrons under 18 were exempt from this study. OBSERVATION RESULTS Over the course of six different one-hour observation periods throughout the semester, we recorded the initial destinations of 1341 patrons as they entered the building. As indicated in Table 1, we then grouped these destinations into two broad categories: 1) library units and 2) non-library units. The use of the term “unit” in either of these contexts includes services, functions and collections where appropriate. To quickly collect our observation data, we created a list of all the possible initial destinations. There were a few destinations that we did not anticipate when putting our list of possibilities together. These included the following services that are not library services: the BG1 card machine for adding funds to student IDs, the ITS help desk, and a vending machine of supplies managed by the bookstore. During the observation study we made note of these additional destinations and integrated them into our data results. Our study focused on the observations of initial destinations of patrons on the first floor of the library, particularly because of the perceived value of the space in terms of a location for current and potential future non-library units, as well as the amount of library services currently located in this space. However, for many of our patrons, the initial destination was one of the other floors of the library, which we refer to as the Tower. The Tower contains the following spaces, libraries, and collections:

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004

4

V. Lux et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Observations grouped by library and non-library units (N = 1341). Groupings Library units n = 812 (61%)

Non-library n = 529 (39%)

Tower Lobby computers Circulation desk Restrooms Soft seating Table seating Reference desk Main stacks Government documents/journals Reference stacks/newspapers Open computer lab 142 Copiers/scanners Learning Commons Cafe Classroom 125 (course grid) Other non-library unitsa,b

Number of observations

Percentage of grouping

Percentage by total

235 148 123 90 64 53 29 23 22

29% 18% 15% 11% 8% 7% 4% 3% 3%

18% 11% 9% 7% 5% 4% 2% 2% 2%

12

1%

1%

10 3 311 139 62

1% b1% 59% 26% 12%

1% b1% 23% 10% 5%

17

3%

1%

were not included in these groupings in order to focus on first floor activity. Organization of the observation data for initial destinations this way intersperses library and non-library units within groupings. Among all the services offered on the first floor of the library, the Learning Commons had the most substantial number of initial visits (65%, n = 311) followed by the circulation desk (26%, n = 123). The remaining five service points collectively garnered less than 10% of observable initial visits. Among the various spaces in the library as represented in our second category in Table 2, the café was the most frequently visited initial destination (34%, n = 139). Various seating (29%, n = 117) around the first floor was the second most popular initial destination in the space grouping. In the technology grouping, initial destinations to computers in the lobby and open computer lab 142 (98%, n = 148, n = 10) far exceeded the use of copiers and scanners. Initial destinations to the library collections overall was minimal (6%, n = 57). Within the collections grouping, the main stacks (40%, n = 23) and the government documents/journal areas (39%, n = 22) were more popular than initial destinations to the reference stacks/newspapers (21%, n = 12).

a

Other non-library units: STAC (7), BG1 card machine (3), vending machine of office supplies from bookstore (1), and ITS help desk (6). b In some cases, table percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

2nd floor: Curriculum Resource Center. 3rd floor: Music Library and Sound Recordings Archives. 4th floor: Browne Popular Culture Library. 5th and 6th floors: Center for Archival Collections. 7th floor: group study space. 8th floor: LC classifications R–Z and quiet study space. We recorded individuals who entered the elevator or stairways from the first floor as visiting the Tower when they used the stairways or the elevators, but we were unable to identify specific destinations beyond their departure from the first floor. However, we did collect information on the use of additional floors in our exit survey. It should also be noted that all non-library units are located on the first floor of the library; therefore, anyone visiting the Tower would be doing so for library purposes. As indicated in Table 1, the top three overall most frequently observed initial destinations on the first floor included visits to the Learning Commons (23%, n = 311), the Tower (18%, n = 235) and the Lobby computers (11%, n = 148). Of all initial destinations observed, 61% (n = 812) were to a library unit while 39% (n = 529) of initial destinations were to non-library units. Within the grouping of patrons who were observed initially going to a library unit, the highest number (29%, n = 235) immediately headed to another floor in the library Tower. Lobby computers were the next most frequent initial destination (18%, n = 148) for users followed by the circulation desk (15%, n = 123), the combination of soft seating (8%, n = 64) and table seating (7%, n = 53), and the restrooms (11%, n = 90). The reference desk, main stacks, government documents/journals and reference stacks/newspapers, the open computer lab 142, and copiers/scanners individually received less than 5% of initial visits by patrons entering the building. Within the grouping of non-library units, the Learning Commons had the highest numbers of initial visits during the observation (59%, n = 311) followed by the café (26%, n = 139) and then classroom 125 (12%, n = 62). The rest of the non-library units totaled only 3% (n = 17) of the initial visits observed and included a combination of the STAC, BG1 card machine, vending machine of supplies managed by the bookstore, and the ITS consultant. In order to look at the data differently, and with more granularity, we categorized the observations into four groupings as indicated in Table 2. Initial observations of patrons going directly to the Tower

EXIT SURVEY RESULTS As our observations were limited to initial destinations, we administered an exit survey to learn directly from patrons their reasons for coming to the library. There were a total of 219 completed survey responses that met the qualifications for inclusion in the exit survey. The following were excluded from the results: participants who listed work as their primary purpose, a repair technician, one incomplete response, and three respondents that included other destinations that we were unable to code with confidence. Undergraduate students comprised 87% (n = 191) of responses, graduate students 11% (n = 24), and faculty 2% (n = 4). We also obtained information by major or area of study from participants using categories defined by the University. We included a printed list by major or program to serve as a reference for participants as needed. We compiled the completed major or area of study responses into four broader categories: Social Sciences (46%, n = 101), Sciences and Technology (29%, n = 64), Humanities and Arts (18%, n = 41), and Pre-Professional Programs (4%, n = 7). Pre-Professional Programs at BGSU is mainly related to the Sciences (Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, & Veterinary Medicine) but also includes Pre-Law. We received six responses from undecided students that were not included in the above categories.

Table 2 Observations—grouped by services, spaces, technology and library collections (N = 1106). Groupings

Numbers of Percentage Percentage observations of grouping of total

Learning Commons Circulation desk Reference desk STAC ITS help desk BG1 card Office supplies vending machine Café Spaces Seating n = 408 Restrooms (37%) Classroom 125 Lobby computers Technology Open computer lab 142 n = 161 Copiers/scanners (14%) Library collections Main stacks Government n = 57 documents/journals (6%) Reference stacks/newspapers

311 123 29 7 6 3 1

65% 26% 6% 1% 1% 1% b1%

28% 11% 3% 1% 1% b1% b1%

139 117 90 62 148 10 3 23 22

34% 29% 22% 15% 92% 6% 2% 40% 39%

13% 11% 8% 6% 13% 1% b1% 2% 2%

12

21%

1%

Services n = 480 (43%)

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004

V. Lux et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

As our research questions and observations were largely centered on first floor library use, our first question asked participants to identify which floor was their initial destination. As anticipated, the majority of participants listed the first floor (65%, n = 143). As previously mentioned, the library houses several distinct special library collections located on floors 2–6: the Curriculum Resource Center, the Music Library and Sound Recording Archives, the Browne Popular Culture Library, and the Center for Archival Collections. Each of these floors contains a combination of collections of physical items as well as small study areas. Floors 2–6 were the initial destination for 11% (n = 25) of our respondents. The seventh floor is designated group study space that was the initial destination of 16% (n = 34) of respondents. The eighth floor contains LC classifications R–Z of the main stacks and also serves as the quiet study floor. It was the initial destination for 8% (n = 17) of respondents. Since we were particularly interested in the use of the spaces on the first floor of the library, only respondents who indicated that the first floor was their initial destination were asked a follow-up question where they selected all first floor locations that they visited during their current trip to the library. These were chosen from a list with an option to add destinations that were not initially included. As indicated in Table 3, the majority of respondents (57%, n = 82) only visited one destination. Two destinations were visited by 22% (n = 32) of respondents, three destinations by 13% (n = 19), four by 3% (n = 5), and five or more destinations were visited by 3% (n = 5) of respondents. The 143 survey respondents who indicated that the first floor was their initial destination visited a total of 262 first floor locations. As indicated in Table 4, the top three self-reported destinations for those visiting the first floor were a combination of library and non-library units. The number one destination was the lobby computers (22%, n = 58) followed by the Learning Commons (21%, n = 54) and a combination of seating (21%, tables n = 37; soft, n = 19). The majority of locations visited were to library units (67%, n = 176). Among the grouping of library units, lobby computers (33%, n = 58), both types of seating (32%, n = 56), and the circulation desk (14%, n = 25) were the most popular destinations. The rest of the library units combined account for less than 25% of the destinations in the library grouping. Visits to the Learning Commons and to the café accounted for more than 90% of non-library destinations. As indicated in Table 5, we categorized the exit survey data into the same four groupings as our observation data. Again, the data in this table are specific to first floor activity only. An analysis of responses grouped by these categories indicates that spaces were the most utilized by our respondents at 33% (n = 87) of all destinations. Services accounted for 32% (n = 84) of all destinations, followed by technology-related destinations (26%, n = 69) and use of library collections (8%, n = 22). Within each of these groupings, seating was the most common destination for spaces on the first floor, the Learning Commons was the most frequented service, lobby computers were the most sought after technology, and the main stacks surpassed the other collections as the most frequented destination. Through our observations, we were able to discern the initial destination for patrons entering the library. However, initial destinations may not be true indicators of the main reason for a library visit. For example, the initial destination for some patrons during our observation was the restroom, but we feel it is unlikely that they came to the library

Table 3 Number of destinations visited on first floor per respondent (N = 143).

One destination Two destinations Three destinations Four destinations Five or more destinations

Numbers of respondents

Percentages

82 32 19 5 5

57% 22% 13% 3% 3%

5

Table 4 Exit survey — first floor destinations grouped by library and non-library units (N = 262). Groupings Library units n = 176 (67%)

Non-library units n = 86 (33%)

Lobby computers Table seating Circulation desk Soft seating Main stacks Copiers/scanners Open computer lab 142 Reference desk Reference stacks Government documents Newspapers Journals Learning Commons Café Classroom 125 STAC

Number of destinations

Percentage of grouping

Percentage of total

58 37 25 19 13 7 4

33% 21% 14% 11% 7% 4% 2%

22% 14% 10% 7% 5% 3% 2%

4 4 3

2% 2% 2%

2% 2% 1%

1 1 54 24 7 1

1% 1% 63% 28% 8% 1%

b1% b1% 21% 9% 3% b1%

primarily for that purpose. To gain a more accurate understanding of the reasons patrons visit the library, we asked all 219 exit survey respondents, regardless of which floor they went to in the building, to select one primary purpose for their visit (Table 6). A list of possible purposes was presented to respondents with an option to add a purpose not included in the options. Information regarding primary purpose of patrons was also useful in determining information for library use beyond the first floor. Responses regarding primary purpose were similar to initial destination responses and observations in that studying was the most frequently chosen option. Studying as an individual was the most common primary purpose with 44% (n = 97) of respondents selecting this option. Group studying was the second most common purpose at 16% (n = 36). Combined, studying was the primary purpose for 60% (n = 133) of all survey respondents. While our observations and destination questions did not indicate a high use of library collections, library materials was the third most chosen primary purpose at 14% (n = 31). The Learning Commons was selected as the primary purpose by 10% (n = 21) of respondents and computers were chosen as the primary purpose by 6% (n = 14). Responses under 5% include: class in room 125, food/drink, scanning/copying/printing, research assistance, and the STAC. Two responses that were added by respondents could not be confidently grouped into other categories. We grouped these two responses, social activities and praying, as other. Table 5 Exit survey—destinations grouped by spaces, services, technology and library collections (N = 262). Groupings

Numbers Percentage Percentage of responses of grouping of total

Spaces n = 87 (33%)

37 24 19 7 54 25 4 1 58 7 4 13 4

43% 28% 22% 8% 64% 30% 5% 1% 84% 10% 6% 59% 18%

14% 9% 7% 3% 21% 10% 2% b1% 22% 3% 2% 5% 2%

3

14%

1%

1 1

5% 5%

b1% b1%

Table seating Café Soft seating Classroom 125 Services Learning Commons n = 84 (32%) Circulation Reference desk STAC Technology Lobby computers n = 69(26%) Copiers/scanners Open computer lab 142 Library collections Main stacks n = 22(8%) Reference stacks/newspapers Government documents Newspapers Journals

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004

6

V. Lux et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 6 Exit survey—primary purpose of library visit (N = 219).

Studying (individual) Studying (group) Library materials Learning Commons Computers Class in room 125 Scanning/copying/printing Food/drink Research assistance Technology assistance/STAC Other

Numbers of respondents

Percentages

97 36 31 21 14 6 4 4 3 1 2

44% 16% 14% 10% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% b1% 1%

We further examined primary purpose by identifying differences in patron status as outlined in Table 7. Results from graduate students and faculty indicated only three primary purposes: individual study (54%, n = 15), library materials (43%, n = 12), and one individual indicated their primary purpose was a class in the library. The high use of library materials by graduate students and faculty did increase the overall results regarding the use of library materials. Only 10% (n = 19) of undergraduate students, by contrast, listed library materials as a primary purpose for their visit. The top two primary purposes for undergraduates were studying individually (43%, n = 82) and studying as a group (19%, n = 36). The Learning Commons was the primary purpose of 11% (n = 21) of undergraduate students. Computers were the primary purpose of 7% (n = 14) of undergraduate student respondents. The remaining primary purposes of undergraduates were each selected by less than 5% of respondents. DISCUSSION LIBRARY AND NON-LIBRARY UNITS In initially looking over the observation data, we were struck by the number of non-library units we missed when we created the instrument we used to gather observation data. We completely missed the ITS help desk, the vending machine for the bookstore supplies, and the BG1 card machine. Though we direct patrons to these services periodically, clearly they have become a part of what we are used to having in the library facility from day to day. The library as a place to pray was also an unanticipated survey response in the open-ended text boxes. A comparison of the data in Tables 1 and 4 that group our data into library and non-library units clearly reveals that patrons still come to the building for library reasons more often than for non-library reasons. As a reminder, all of the non-library services that have moved into the library function independently of each other and of the pre-existing library services. Our definition of a Learning Commons at our institution is a very narrow one that focuses only on peer-to-peer tutoring. Library services and information technology services are not a part of our

Learning Commons. Before we began the study, our assumption was that non-library units were heavy drivers of traffic to the library, possibly at a higher percentage than the traditional library services. Some of these units, like the Learning Commons, the café, and the STAC, have moved into the library within the last few years, and have anecdotally drawn more attention across campus than the core library services that have been a part of the library for much longer. In particular, we thought it possible that the Learning Commons statistics would show a higher percentage of use than library services. What we found through observation was that the Learning Commons, while certainly a valuable service, was recorded at a lower percentage than anticipated. We understand this to show that the peer tutoring offered at the Learning Commons is a great complement to the traditional services of the library, and that although the visibility of the Learning Commons services might be higher, their use does not eclipse that of the collective offerings of the library. Another prevalent finding in the data as it is grouped in Tables 1 and 4 is that computers are the top destination for the library groupings. We struggled with how to arrange our groupings for the analysis of data, particularly since it could have been argued at an earlier point in time that computers are not part of core library functions. Library spaces have evolved from quiet reading rooms to study spaces designed for a variety of activities that may or may not include the use of library materials. Researchers have also embraced computers for purposes beyond reference and research purposes. Shoham and Roitberg (2005) noted that students use computer labs for non-library purposes, but that “this trend should be adopted by the libraries without hesitation” (p. 345). In our determination of library versus non-library units, we quickly identified computers as a core library service. We anticipate that some of the non-library units discussed in this paper may be considered core library services in the future. It should be noted, too, that although the Learning Commons and STAC are included here as nonlibrary units, these offices are now not only located in the library spaces, but are also included in the library's administrative organizational structure. A possible benefit of non-library units located in the academic library is that the increased building traffic could result in increased use of library services and collections. Shoham and Roitberg (2005) found that on average patrons had three purposes for visiting the library. Our results did not reflect this finding. In our exit survey, 1.8 destinations were visited on average (262 destinations recorded by 146 participants), but this average contains a few outliers who visited many more destinations (up to fourteen) than the majority of respondents. Our frequency results (Table 3) indicate that the majority of our patrons come to the library for only one purpose and do not use other services during a particular visit. SPACES This section and the remaining sections in the Discussion are organized by the groupings (spaces, services, technology and library

Table 7 Exit survey—primary purpose of undergraduate students and graduate students/faculty (N = 219).

Studying (individual) Studying (group) Learning Commons Library materials Computers Class in room 125 Scanning/copying/printing Food/drink Research assistance Technology assistance/STAC Other

Undergraduate responses (n = 191)

Percentage by undergraduate students

Graduate and faculty responses (n = 28)

Percentage by graduate students and faculty

82 36 21 19 14 5 4 4 3 1 2

43% 19% 11% 10% 7% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%

15 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

54% 0% 0% 43% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004

V. Lux et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

collections) in Tables 2 and 5. In addition, we will also use Table 6 to draw comparisons in these sections. As a refresher, Table 2 includes data from observations of initial destinations only for the first floor. Table 5 includes survey data of all destinations visited for those who chose the first floor as their initial destination. And Table 6 includes data from all respondents, regardless of which floor they were on, about their primary purpose for visiting the library the day the survey was administered. What does a comparison of data among these three tables tell us about how patrons use the library space? Overall, the grouping for destinations related to space is the top grouping for survey respondents and the second highest for the observations. The observed initial destinations to some type of seating (37%, n = 117) was second highest among the other destinations in that grouping but relatively low compared with both types of seating (64%, n = 56) in the first floor destinations of survey respondents. When the latter was compared with the primary purpose of library use for all survey respondents, individual and group studying rated highest (60%, n = 133). These patterns in the data elicited a deeper investigation into the data. In looking at cross tabulations of the survey data, we found that the primary destination of our undergraduate respondents was the first floor, followed by the seventh floor—a vibrant floor predominately used for group study. The primary destination of graduate student and faculty respondents was also the first floor, followed by the eighth floor, which is a designated silent study floor. While the eighth floor does contain a portion of our circulating collection, all respondents who noted the eighth floor as their primary destination listed their primary purpose as studying. While the study floors were among the top destinations and studying was the most frequently cited primary purpose, our results nevertheless indicate that the majority of our users from all population groups do not extend their visit beyond the first floor. This reinforces our need for use assessment of the first floor, as these services and spaces are likely to see increased use based on their proximity to the entrance. Studying was the most frequently cited primary purpose by patrons using the first floor, which is particularly noteworthy given that the library does contain two floors almost exclusively dedicated to studying and that the first floor contains many competing library and external services. A number of patrons indicated that studying was their primary purpose, but their destinations did not include traditional “study areas”. Instead, these patrons listed destinations such as the Learning Commons and/or computers. Studying itself may be a more complex activity than we initially accounted for, and in future assessments we would provide a finer-grained list of purposes that may be encompassed under the “studying” label, such as reading and reviewing class material, completing coursework, meeting with a tutor, etc. We were surprised that only 10% of respondents listed the Learning Commons as the primary purpose of their visit given that it was our top initial destination and second most frequently visited destination in our exit survey. As we did with the reference desk, we decided to investigate this discrepancy through our in-house statistics. We retrieved all checkins to the Learning Commons during our six observation periods (Table 8). Half (n = 120) of the Learning Commons check-ins were for study hours, likely a product of the Learning Commons service whereby they track and report compliance with study hours required by some campus organizations. Individuals who signed in for study hours and study groups may have listed their primary purpose as studying, not using the Learning Commons. Although our primary study goals did not include researching study habits, we did gain a few insights in this area. The findings regarding primary purpose indicate that substantially more of our patrons study individually (73%, n = 97) than in a group (27%, n = 36). In a breakdown by major, individual study was preferred by all of the top five recorded majors and overwhelmingly by some areas of study such as business. Similarly, while both table/chair and soft seating are available in most of our study areas, our exit survey results suggest significant

7

Table 8 Learning commons check-ins by service (N = 242). Learning Commons services

Check-ins

Percentages

Study hours Tutoring Writing Study group Academic coaching

120 83 31 7 5

50% 34% 13% 3% 2%

preferences for table/chair style furniture over the soft seating options. In short, individual study spaces are still very much in demand. It should also be noted that the café was the most frequently observed initial destination among the groupings for space (44%, n = 139). When compared with the destinations reported in the survey, there was a slight decline (28%, n = 24) and a significant drop in the primary purpose of respondents. Only 2% (n = 4) reported food and drink as a primary reason for coming to the library. The café in the library is a non-library unit run through campus dining services. The space itself is divided in two—part of the café is devoted to the sale of food and drinks, and the rest to café-style soft and table seating. The hours for sales are determined by dining services, and based on sales; therefore, the café vending space is closed during many hours that the library itself is open. However, even when the vending space is closed, the café-style furniture is still available to students, and is used as a study space during and outside of the open hours of the café. The high percentage of use despite limited café hours is primarily attributable to this factor—students have claimed this area as a study space independent of the food and drink available in the café. This would suggest that the café is not in itself a primary driver of library use and that perhaps it is being used more for its comfortable seating than for purchases of food and drink.

SERVICES When looking at the data for groupings related to services in the observation and the survey, traffic to the Learning Commons far surpasses that of any other service point on the first floor. One reason for this is that the Learning Commons has done an excellent job of marketing their peer-to-peer tutoring services by integrating their services into targeted programs on campus. It is not uncommon for instructors in various programs to refer and require students to visit the Learning Commons through an online advising system that sends verifications of student visits to instructors. In spite of what appears to be heavy traffic to this particular service point, the Learning Commons was selected as the primary purpose for coming to the building by only 10% (n = 21) of survey respondents. Coming to the building for studying far surpassed the need to come to the library for services offered through the Learning Commons. It was no surprise to us that the circulation desk was a close second to the Learning Commons in services grouping. In addition to checking out materials from the collections and reserves, they also circulate a wide range of other materials from technology to umbrellas. As librarians, however, we were concerned about the low number of reference desk visits recorded during our observations. Reference desk use accounted for 3% of all initial destinations and 6% within the services grouping (n = 29). While this is higher than the 1% of all service desks observed by May and Swabey (2015), we did initially expect that reference services would represent a larger segment of use. Our assumption may stem from our personal experiences with our vibrant chat reference service that allows students to get research assistance without physically stopping at the reference desk. Another consideration is that our observations only tracked initial destinations, whereas many students who use our reference services do not come into the library with that specific pre-determined need. Statistics gathered at the reference desk indicate higher use than we observed, with a total

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004

8

V. Lux et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

of forty-eight in-person and chat transactions (an average of eight questions per hour) recorded during our observation hours. STAC had particularly low numbers overall in this grouping. There are several explanations for this. Though the STAC has been in existence for approximately ten years, it has been moved around campus several times. As a result, patrons might not know it exists or where it is on campus due to the fact that it has only been in the library for less than two years. Of all the services in this grouping, the STAC is the only service that is duplicative in that some of the colleges have a similar operation in-house. All of the services in this grouping operate independent and standalone service points on the first floor in spite of the fact that all of them, excluding the circulation desk, have a primary mission of providing one-on-one consultations related to academic support. The lower use of service desks could indicate the benefits of shared service point models. Combining service points would open up space for other building purposes and allow for greater collaboration. TECHNOLOGY Previous research has highlighted the high use of computers, printers, and copiers in library spaces (Dotson & Garris, 2008; May & Swabey, 2015; Shoham & Roitberg, 2005). However, wireless Internet and mobile technology has shifted our campus IT direction away from dedicated computer labs in favor of student-supplied wireless devices that can be used anywhere. Our observation and exit survey results found that technology, particularly computers, is used by patrons. Observation and survey data indicate high use of lobby computers in particular. In fact they are the most frequent destination among survey respondents and the second most frequently observed initial destination. However, when we examined the data in the context of other destinations related to technology, questions arose. For example, we were surprised that copiers and scanners were so seldom a destination in the initial observations, nor did they fare well in the survey. Equally unexpected was the low interest in the open computer lab 142. One possible explanation is that this lab is tucked away in the back of the building and also serves as an instruction space several times a week for the librarians. Patrons either are not aware of this room or are unsure if they can use the space since it is often occupied. Either way, this would suggest an opportunity to advertise this open lab given the popularity of the lobby computers. An examination of the primary use data in Table 6 does not suggest a great deal of interest in technology as a primary reason that patrons come to the library. However, the 22% (n = 58) of patrons who selected computers in all the destinations they went to on the first floor during their visit (Table 4) indicates that there is still a need to keep computers in the building. LIBRARY COLLECTIONS We were skeptical of our observation data when it came to the library collections groupings because we did not have the ability to continuously observe what exactly patrons were doing in these spaces. In many of our library collection areas on the first floor, seating is interspersed among the books, which means that patrons could have been going into these collection areas for studying, too. Within the library collections grouping for observations, the percentages for initial destinations to main stacks (40%, n = 23) and to government documents/ journals (39%, n = 22) was almost even. This was not the same pattern with the self-reported initial destinations found in the survey data since the majority of respondents in the library collections grouping favored the main stacks (59%, n = 13). As indicated in Table 6, library materials were the third most commonly listed primary purpose in our exit survey. This, coupled with the circulation desk results in both the observations and survey, suggests that library collections remain high among the reasons that patrons come to the facility, particularly for more advanced researchers. Graduate students and faculty were considerably

more likely to list library materials as their primary purpose (43%, n = 12) in our exit survey than were undergraduates (10%, n = 19). LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH The findings in this study are specific to one institution. However, the results are similar to other studies as indicated throughout the Discussion. Pursuing focus groups would have enhanced the understanding of the observations and survey findings in this study. Adding observation points in the Tower would have been enlightening as well. Diversifying the research team to include others from nonlibrary units would minimize bias. Lastly, patrons who do not come to the library are not represented in this study. Long term tracking of how individual spaces are used by students in the library is needed before making decisions about repurposing library facilities for additional non-library units, especially if libraries are pressured to provide space to campus entities that they do not perceive to align with the mission of the library. This should include intentional logging of what works and what does not work in existing spaces, as well as asking patrons directly what they need and want in a library facility. This exploratory research has helped us narrow our focus about what to ask students next. CONCLUSION In this study, we attempted to explore why patrons come to the library facility by observing patron behaviors, garnering their perceptions through survey responses, and examining select library statistics where appropriate. The results of this study suggest several possible areas for further exploration and consideration.

COMBINE SERVICE POINTS There are five separate service points on the first floor that operate independently of one another. These include the Learning Commons, the reference desk, the circulation desk, the STAC and the ITS help desk. Clearly, the traffic to the Learning Commons surpasses that of the other desks. A careful examination should be undertaken to determine why this is so. What can the other service points learn from what the Learning Commons is doing in order to increase usage statistics? Could other service points benefit from being located alongside a service point that is heavily visited by patrons? With the exception of the circulation desk, all of these service points have a shared mission of one-to-one consultations with students related to academic success, yet none of them work together. Combining some of these service points might even spark mutually beneficial relationships between services that otherwise function independently of one another. Practically speaking, five separate service points occupy valuable square footage. The resulting space could be repurposed for study areas that are clearly a primary purpose of building use. Careful consideration for combining service points would need to be given so that patrons can distinguish one service from another if combined into one or two central locations.

CREATE MORE INDIVIDUAL STUDY SPACE The majority of patrons come to the library for one primary purpose. Based on self-reported survey data, that primary purpose is to study. Our library can seat 8% of our full-time equivalent student population. This is significantly less than the recommended standard of 25–30% for residential campuses (Leighton & Weber, 1999). Results of this study support the need for expanding the amount and type of study spaces we offer. Querying students through a focus group or by other means to confirm the findings of this study would be wise.

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004

V. Lux et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

DESKTOP COMPUTERS ARE STILL NEEDED Patron interest in desktop computers is still strong in our library. However, further research is needed to determine the amount of computers needed to meet the demand. Though the lobby computers were popular, computers in other areas of the first floor were not. THE IMAGE OF THE LIBRARY REMAINS STABLE At this point in time, our study indicates that the top primary reasons patrons come to our library are to study, to use our materials, and for individual consultation services. The non-library units that are currently located in the facility have not drastically altered the image of the library as an academic support hub on campus. In fact, the services we have moved into the library have enhanced the library's reputation of supporting academic success, especially with the addition of the Learning Commons. This is because the vision and goals of the Learning Commons and the STAC align with and are shared by the library. We began our study with three research questions. First, we were interested in the initial destinations of patrons as they entered the building. We found that overall, the top three destinations of patrons as they entered the building were the Learning Commons, the Tower that houses our special collections and study floors, and the circulation desk. We were most interested in the use of our first-floor services, spaces, and collections, and when limiting to the first floor, we observed that the Learning Commons remained the top initial destination, followed by the café and lobby computers. Second, we were interested in determining the number of destinations our patrons visited. Through our exit survey, we found that more than half of our users only stopped at one destination during their visit. Our final research question pertained to the primary purpose for which patrons visit the library. Our exit survey indicated that the top three primary purposes were individual study, group study, and library materials. Overall, we learned that the library plays a particularly important role as a place for student studying, that non-library units are driving traffic to our library but do not eclipse the library in use nor as a primary purpose, and that we need to further develop connections between the library and non-library units. Additionally, as indicated throughout our discussion, relying solely on observations of activity on the first floor provides only a partial explanation as to why patrons use the library. A deeper look at the self-reported data from our patrons tells a more nuanced story, and therefore moving forward it will be imperative to involve patrons more deeply in a discussion of how their use of library facilities contributes to their academic success. REFERENCES Applegate, R. (2009). The library is for studying: Student preferences for study space. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), 341–346. Association of College and Research Libraries (2015). Environmental scan 2015 [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/ publications/whitepapers/EnvironmentalScan15.pdf Bailin, K. (2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at the University of New South Wales. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 42(4), 342–359. Bedwell, L., & Banks, C. (2013). Seeing through the eyes of students: Participant observation in an academic library. Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 8(1), 1–17. Bitgood, S. (2006). Not another step! Economy of movement and pedestrian choice point behavior in shopping malls. Environment and Behavior, 38(3), 394–405. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0013916505280081. Brunsdale, M. (2000). From mild to wild: Strategies for promoting academic libraries to undergraduates. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 39(4), 331–332. Bryant, J., Matthews, G., & Walton, G. (2009). Academic libraries and social and learning space: A case study of Loughborough University Library, UK. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(1), 7–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000608099895. Buschman, J., & Leckie, G.J. (2007). The library as place: History, community, and culture. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

9

Dotson, D.S., & Garris, J.B. (2008). Counting more than the gate: Developing building use statistics to create better facilities for today's academic library users. Library Philosophy and Practice Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/208/ Faletar Tanackovic, S., Lacović, D., & Gašo, G. (2014). Student use of library physical spaces: Unobtrusive observation of study spaces in an academic library. Libraries In the Digital Age (LIDA) proceedings, 13 Retrieved from http://ozk.unizd.hr/ proceedings/index.php/lida/article/view/114 Fielding, N., & Fielding, J. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Foster, N.F., & Gibbons, S. (2007). Studying students: The undergraduate research project at the University of Rochester. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Fox, R., & Doshi, A. (2013). Longitudinal assessment of “user-driven” library commons space. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(2), 85–95. Frade, P.A.,., & Washburn, A. (2006). The university library: The center of a university education? portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(3), 327–346. Gayton, J.T. (2008). Academic libraries: “Social” or “communal?” The nature and future of academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 60–66. Gorman, G.E., & Clayton, P. (2005). Qualitative research for the information professional. A practical handbook. London: Facet Publishing. Hahn, J.Z. (2011). How first-year students navigate the stacks. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 51(1), 28–35. Hernon, P., & Powell, R.R. (Eds.). (2008). Convergence and collaboration of campus information services. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Hobbs, K., & Klare, D. (2010). User driven design: Using ethnographic techniques to plan student study space. Technical Services Quarterly, 27(4), 347–363. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/07317131003766009. King, F.E., Wilson Buss, C., Cohen, N., Stanley, D., & White, E. (2008). The University of Georgia Student Learning Center. In P. Hernon, & R.R. Powell (Eds.), Convergence and collaboration of campus information services (pp. 125–139). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Leighton, P.D., & Weber, D.C. (1999). Planning academic and research library buildings. Chicago: American Library Association. Li, R., & Klippel, A. (2012). Wayfinding in libraries: Can problems be predicted? Journal of Map and Geography Libraries, 8(1), 21–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15420353.2011. 622456. Lippincott, J.K. (2004). New library facilities: Opportunities for collaboration. In W. Miller, & R.M. Pellen (Eds.), Libraries within their institutions: Creative collaborations (pp. 147–157). New York: Haworth Information Press. Mandel, L.H. (2010). Identifying the most popular entry routes into a public library using GIS can be a tool to increase ease of navigation and identify placement of marketing materials. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5(4), 116–130. May, F., & Swabey, A. (2015). Using and experiencing the academic library: A multi-site observational study of space and place. College & Research Libraries, 76(6), 771–795. Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing. Montgomery, S.E. (2011). Quantitative vs. qualitative—Do different research methods give us consistent information about our users and their library space needs? Library and Information Research, 35(111), 73–86. Paretta, L.T., & Catalano, A. (2013). What students really do in the library: An observational study. The Reference Librarian, 54(2), 157–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 02763877.2013.755033. Scarletto, E.A., Burhanna, K.J., & Richardson, E. (2013). Wide awake at 4 AM: A study of late night user behavior, perceptions and performance at an academic library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(5), 371–377. Schafer, J., & Moore, A.C. (2008). The library as model of integrated student-centered academic support enterprise. In P. Hernon, & R.R. Powell (Eds.), Convergence and collaboration of campus information services (pp. 101–124). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Sennyey, P., Ross, L., & Mills, C. (2009). Exploring the future of academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(3), 252–259. Shill, H., & Tonner, S. (2004). Does the building still matter? Usage patterns in new, expanded, and renovated libraries, 1995–2002. College and Research Libraries, 65(2), 123–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.2.123. Shoham, S., & Roitberg, N. (2005). From electronic library to a learning center in the academic library: Integrating traditional and new uses in the library workstation. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(4), 339–346. Suarez, D. (2007). What students do when they study in the library: Using ethnographic methods to observe student behavior. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8(3) Retrieved from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org content/ v08n03/suarez_d01.html Turner, A., Welch, B., & Reynolds, S. (2013). Learning spaces in academic libraries—A review of the evolving trends. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 44(4), 226–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2013.857383. Van Beynen, K., Pettijohn, P., & Carrel, M. (2010). Using pedestrian choice research to facilitate resource engagement in a midsized academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(5), 412–419. Webb, K.M., Schaller, M.A., & Hunley, S.A. (2008). Measuring library space use and preferences: Charting a path toward increased engagement. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8(4), 407–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0014. Yoo-Lee, E., Lee, T.H., & Velez, L. (2013). Planning library spaces and services for Millennials: An evidence-based approach. Library Management, 34(6/7), 498–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LM-08-2012-0049.

Please cite this article as: Lux, V., et al., Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004