Academic Libraries

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the academic library data, a detailed description of certain survey question responses by academic library size, and a summary of comparisons with data from the 2001 survey.

1.1 Technology Overview

• Availability of funding: Of the academic libraries surveyed, 95.6 percent report having received funding for technology in the past 12 months, and 88.1 percent expect to have funding in the next 12 months.
• Adequacy of technology funding: Half of academic libraries indicate that more than 75 percent of their technology needs are adequately funded. More than one-fourth (28.0%) of medium libraries report that their technology needs are fully (100%) met. However, 26.9 percent of large libraries indicate that 50 percent or less of their technology needs are adequately funded.
• Maintaining and adding technologies: All academic libraries, regardless of size, agree that their institutions are able to maintain their current levels of technology but are neutral on their institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs.
• Technology capacity: More than two-thirds of academic libraries (70.7%) either currently have the technology capacity necessary to meet their needs or almost have enough capacity to meet their needs. Overall, 29.3 percent of the libraries indicated that their technology capacity is short of meeting their mission or does not meet their mission.
• Technologies in use: E-mail, desktop computers, office productivity software, institutional Web site, and computerized catalogs of library or other collections are used by nearly all academic libraries. Other technologies widely used include the following:
• Broadband Internet connections, used by 90.8 percent of academic libraries.


• Local area networks (LANs), used by 87.7 percent.
• Integrated library system, used by 84.6 percent.
• Multimedia services or collections, used by 78.5 percent.
• Accounting/payroll/human resources software, used by 76.9 percent.
• Software to manage public-access computers and printing, used by 66.7 percent.


• Staff capabilities: Overall, 71.4 percent of academic libraries report that they do not have enough skilled staff to accomplish their technology activities. This is particularly true among small academic libraries, of which 83.3 percent do not have sufficient numbers of skilled staff.
• Needs assessment: Overall, 43.8 percent of academic libraries conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for technology-supported services, including 53.8 percent of large and 41.7 percent of small academic libraries.

1.2 Digitization Overview

• Digitization policies: Among all academic libraries, regardless of size, the most common policies in place include access (30.6% of academic libraries), digital format (23%), and intellectual property issues (19.7%). Large academic libraries are generally stronger in each of these categories (40.0, 36.0, and 28.0%, respectively).
• Funding for digitization activities: Overall, 29.0 percent of academic libraries had digitization funds in the past 12 months, including 40.0 percent of large libraries. However, the majority of academic libraries (54.8%) did not have funding for this period.
• Digitization priorities: Digitizing historical documents/archives is a top priority for 38.7 percent of all academic libraries; digitizing course material is important to 33.9 percent; and digitizing photographs is a top priority for 24.2 percent of all academic libraries.
• Materials and images digitized: In the past 12 months, 45.0 percent of all academic libraries created 1 to 500 digital images. Overall, large academic libraries digitized more than small and medium ones did. No digital images were created by 40.0 percent of all academic libraries, including 60.0 percent of small and 50.0 percent of medium libraries.
• Materials or images still to be digitized: More that half (54.4%) of academic libraries of all sizes have between 1 and 10,000 items left to digitize, and 19.3 percent have more than 25,000 items left. Large academic libraries have the most items to digitize, with 66.6 percent having more than 5,000 items to digitize. Overall, 24.6 percent of the libraries report that they have no items to be digitized, including 44.4 percent of small academic libraries.
• Undertaking digitization activities: Across all academic libraries, 45.2 percent train current staff to perform digitization activities, 12.9 percent reassign staff to perform these activities, and 11.3 percent hire new staff to digitize materials.
• Making digital images available: The majority of large academic libraries (52.0%) make some of their digital image collections available to the public, while fewer small and medium academic libraries (27.3 and 23.2%, respectively) make their digital collections available. The majority (56.0%) of academic libraries make their digital collections available to the public via the Web, including 72.7 percent of large libraries. Access on-site is available in 20.0 percent of the academic libraries.
• Needs assessment: More than two-thirds of academic libraries (78.7%) do not conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for digitized materials and images in their institutions.
• Collaboration: Of all academic libraries, 21.3 percent report that they collaborate with other institutions through specific partnering agreements. When they collaborate, 69.2 percent turn to other academic libraries, 61.5 percent turn to universities and colleges, 61.5 percent turn to state library agencies, and 38.5 percent turn to historical societies.
• Capability for digitization activities: On average, academic libraries feel somewhat deficient in their capability to initiate, accomplish, and sustain digitization activities. Staff skills and expertise are the most highly rated capabilities; funding is the lowest.
• Hindrances to digitization: Overall, academic libraries (regardless of size) tend to agree most strongly that “lack of staff time,” “lack of funds,” and “other projects have higher priorities” are all hindrances to their digitization activities.

This section highlights the differences between the small, medium, and large academic libraries that responded to the survey. It compares how issues related to technology and digitization differ among the three size categories. To determine the small, medium, and large categories, we used the academic library survey question D on academic library budget size.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question D;respondents were asked to select only one option.

2.1 Demographics

A total of 70 academic libraries participated in the survey. However, not all academic library participants responded to every question, so the sample sizes presented in the tables below might be slightly lower than 70. In addition, some tables are broken down by size of academic library while others are presented on the whole, which may result in different sample sizes for different tables.

Type of Academic Library

Figure 2 shows the types of academic institutions participating in the survey. Almost half of all academic library respondents represented universities.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question C ; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Type of Academic Library

Figure 3 shows the annual budget for academic libraries. Slightly more than a quarter of the academic libraries surveyed have budgets between $1 million and $5 million, although more than half of them have budgets of less than $750,000.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question D; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Figure 4 shows the number of full-time staff reported by academic libraries. Three-quarters of academic libraries report staff sizes of fewer than 25.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question E; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Almost all (95.6%) academic libraries had funding for technology in the past 12 months and 88.1 percent plan to have funding in the next 12 months.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1 and 2; respondents were asked to select only one option.

More than one-fourth of medium academic libraries report that 100 percent of their technology needs are adequately funded.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 3; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Figure 7 shows the mean ratings of an institution’s ability to maintain or add technology based on a 5-point scale, with “1” meaning strongly agree and “5” meaning strongly disagree. Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 indicate agreement, ratings between 2.5 and 3.5 indicate neither agreement nor disagreement, and ratings greater than 3.5 indicate disagreement.

All academic libraries agree that their institutions are able to maintain their current levels of technology, but they are neutral on their institutions’ ability to add new uses of technology to meet evolving needs.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 4. The scale for this question was 1, meaning strongly agree, to 5, meaning strongly disagree.

More than two-thirds of academic libraries (70.7%) either currently have the technology capacity necessary to meet their mission, or their technology capacity almost meets their mission. On average, 29.3 percent of academic libraries report that their technology capacity is short of meeting their mission or does not meet their mission.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 5; respondents were asked to select only one option.

All academic libraries, regardless of size, used e-mail in the past 12 months, and almost all used desktop computers, office productivity software, and a Web site for their institutions.

Note: Data are based on survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

The majority of small academic libraries (58.3%) and medium academic libraries (57.7%) used between 11 and 15 technologies in the past 12 months, while the majority of large academic libraries (76.9%) used between 11 and 20 technologies.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6.

A greater number of small academic libraries (83.3%) report that they do not have the right number of skilled staff to accomplish their technology activities than either medium or large academic libraries (69.2 and 68.0%, respectively).

Overall, more than two-thirds of academic libraries (71.4%) do not have enough skilled staff to accomplish their technology activities.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 10; respondents were asked to select only one option.

A greater number of small and large academic libraries (41.7 and 53.8%, respectively) conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for technology-supported services or experiences at their institutions than do medium academic libraries (34.6%).

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 12; respondents were asked to select only one option.

In general, a greater number of large academic libraries have digitization policies in place than medium or small academic libraries do. The most prevalent digitization policies among all academic libraries are those for access (30.6% of all libraries have such policies), digital format (23.0%), and intellectual property issues (19.7%). The least prevalent policies include those for conversion of digital files to next-generation formats (1.7%), quality control (6.6%), and preservation (8.2%). Overall, the data show that even the most prevalent policies are in place in less than one-third of all academic libraries.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

A greater number of large academic libraries (40.0%) had funding to support their digitization activities in the past 12 months than small and medium academic libraries (18.2 and 23.1%, respectively). A majority of small and medium academic libraries (72.7 and 57.7%, respectively) reported that they did not have funding to support their digitization activities in the past 12 months.

Note: Data are based on survey question 18; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Course materials, photographs, and information on the institution were digitized by academic libraries more than any other materials. Overall, 13.1 percent of academic libraries digitized course materials, 8.3 percent digitized photographs, and 8.2 percent digitized information on their institutions.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 20; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

Of the academic libraries surveyed, the three highest digitization priorities were as follows:

• Historical documents/archives: a priority for 38.7 percent of all academic libraries.
• Course material: a priority for 33.9 percent of all academic libraries.
• Photographs: a priority for 24.2 percent of all academic libraries.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 22; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top three priorities.

The majority of small academic libraries (60.0%) and half of medium academic libraries (50.0%) created no digital materials or images in the past 12 months, whereas the majority of large academic libraries (54.2%) created between 1 and 500 digital materials or images in the past 12 months.

Note: Data are based on survey question 23; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Overall, 54.4 percent of all academic libraries have from 1 to 10,000 digital materials or images left to be digitized. However, almost one-fourth (24.6%) of all academic libraries report that they have no materials or images left to digitize.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 24; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Overall, academic libraries are more likely to undertake their digitization activities by training current staff to perform these activities.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 26; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

Overall, 43.6 percent of academic libraries make some or all of their digital image collections available to the public. More academic libraries with large budgets (60%) make some or all of their digital image collections available to the public than academic libraries with small and medium budgets (36.4 and 30.8%, respectively).

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 27; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Of those large academic libraries that make their digital image collections available to the public, almost three-fourths of them (72.7%) make their collections available on the Web, while almost one-fourth (22.7%) make their collections available on the premises on their computer networks (LANs).

Of those small and medium academic libraries that make their digital image collections available to the public, almost one half (44.4 and 42.1%, respectively) make their collections available on the Web.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 28; respondents were asked to select all that apply. The table includes only respondents who reported that they make some or all of their digital image collections available to the public.

More than two-thirds of academic libraries (78.7%), regardless of size, do not conduct assessments of user or visitor needs for digitized materials and images in their institutions.

Note: Data are based on survey question 35; respondents were asked to select only one option.

21.3 percent of all academic libraries collaborate (through specific partnering agreements) with other institutions and organizations to digitize materials.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were asked to select only one option.

Of those academic libraries that do collaborate to digitize materials, 69.2 percent turn to other academic libraries, 61.5 percent turn to state library agencies, and 61.5 percent turn to universities and colleges.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 37; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

Overall, academic libraries rate their capability to initiate, accomplish, and sustain digitization activities between somewhat deficient and neutral in all areas. Medium academic libraries rated themselves the least capable, while small and large academic libraries rated themselves somewhat more capable.

Figure 25 shows the average ratings of an institution’s capability to initiate, accomplish, and sustain digitization activities based on a 5-point scale, with “1” meaning deficient and “5” meaning fully capable. Therefore, ratings less than 2.5 tend to indicate deficiency and ratings greater than 2.5 tend to indicate capability.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 39; respondents were asked to rate each capability. The scale for this question was 1, meaning deficient, to 5, meaning fully capable.

Overall, academic libraries cite “lack of staff time,” “lack of funds,” and “other projects have higher priorities” as the strongest hindrances to their digitization activities. “Not having collections worth digitizing,” “security concerns,” “management is unaware of the benefits of digitization,” and “concern about intellectual property issues” are the least-cited hindrances.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 39; respondents were asked to rate each capability. The scale for this question was 1, meaning deficient, to 5, meaning fully capable.

This section highlights the differences in the following categories between the 2001 and the 2004 survey findings.

• Top technologies used
• Funding for technology and digitization
• Sources of funding for digitization activities
• Digitization policies
• Top goals for digitization projects

Because of some differences between the 2001 and 2004 survey questions, comparisons are made only where applicable.

• Technologies used in the past 12 months: Overall, technology use for basic operations became more pervasive among academic libraries. The percentage of academic libraries using e-mail went up from 98.7 percent in 2001 to 100 percent in 2004; the percentage of those using desktop computers went up from 93.7 percent to 98.5 percent; office productivity software use went up from 91.1 percent to 98.5 percent; and the percentage of academic libraries with Web sites went up from 94.4 percent in 2001 to 98.5 percent in 2004. The use of accounting/payroll/human resources software increased, as well: 58.2 percent of academic libraries used these technologies in 2001, compared with 76.9 percent in 2004. Also, the percentage of intranet use went up from 57.0 percent to 66.1 percent.
• Goals for digitization projects: The academic libraries’ primary goals for digitization activities changed from 2001 to 2004:
• Preserving materials of importance or value was identified as a primary goal by 40.8 percent of academic libraries in 2001, but this figure went down to 34.9 percent in 2004.
• Increasing access to collections/materials was an important goal to 16.9 percent in 2001, but this figure went up significantly to 42.9 percent by 2004.
• Minimizing damage to original materials was identified as a primary goal by 35.2 percent of academic libraries in 2001, but this figure dropped to 12.7 percent in 2004.
• Providing access to materials via the Web was important to 23.9 percent in 2001; this number went up to 36.5 percent by 2004.
• Increasing interest in the institution was a primary goal to 31.0 percent of all academic libraries in 2001, but this number dropped to 11.1 percent in 2004.

The three technologies most commonly used by academic libraries in 2001 and 2004 were e-mail, Web sites for their institutions, and desktop computers. Additionally, in 2004, office productivity software, including word processing, desktop publishing, and spreadsheets, was among the top technologies used.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 6; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

The percentage of academic libraries that report they had funding in 2004 for both technology and digitization activities is lower than the percentage that reported funding in 2001.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey questions 1, 2, 18, and 19; respondents were asked to select only one option. The sample size (n), and percentages differ slightly from Table 14 (Funding to Support Digitization Activities), where some respondents did not provide data on size of library which resulted in slightly smaller sample sizes.

The top three funding sources for technology did not change from 2001 to 2004; they were as follows:

• Institutional operating funds
• State funds
• Grants from Federal agencies

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 1; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

For those academic libraries that had funding for their digitization activities, the top two sources were the same in 2004 as they were in 2001:

• Institutional operating funds
• Grants from Federal agencies

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 18; respondents were asked to select all that apply.

The number of digitization policies in place or in development (versus not in place or in development/don’t know) has increased since 2001. However, even in 2004, the majority of academic libraries did not have policies in place or in development.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 16; respondents were asked to select all that apply. The sample size (n), and percentages differ slightly from Table 13 (Digitization Policies in Place), where some respondents did not provide data on size of library which resulted in slightly smaller sample sizes.

The top three goals for digitization activities in 2001 were as follows:

• Preserve materials of importance or value: This was a goal for 40.8 percent of all academic libraries.
• Minimize damage to original materials: This was a goal for 35.2 percent.
• Increase interest in the institution: This was a goal for 31.0 percent.

In 2004, however, the top three goals were as follows:

• Increase access to collections/materials/files: This was a goal for 42.9 percent of all academic libraries.
• Provide access to materials via the Web: This was a goal for 36.5 percent
• Preserve materials of importance or value: This was a goal for 34.9 percent of academic libraries.

Note: Data are based on responses to survey question 31; respondents were asked to select their institution’s top three priorities.