---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:55:16 -0400
From: Albert Henderson <NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Use Studies Query (Kent Mulliner)

on 16 Oct 1998 Kent Mulliner <mulliner@OHIOU.EDU> wrote:
Colleagues,

> For our library allocation formula, we need statistics about usage of
> library materials.

You might want to consider the following studies before starting:

Butkovich, Nancy J. 1996. Use studies: a selective review.
Library Resources & Technical Services. 40,4 (Oct.):359-368.
According to my note, there are many disagreements regarding
methods and value of use studies and surveys. There is no
definitive agreement on what a �use,'is. Definitions vary
according to needs.

A book, Scientific Journals in the United States, by D. W. King
et al (Dowden Hutchinson, 1981) provides a useful overview of uses
of journals based on interviews and questionaires with users.
While it does not provide the type of study you are looking
for, it illuminates what uses such studies might aim to consider.
It makes no reference to ratios between in-house use and
circulation.

Most use studies published demonstrate insufficient
resources applied to come up with results that are
reliable in terms of managing services. In particular,
advanced research uses are probably overwhelmed by
undergraduates; simple reshelving methods can not
compensate for patrons who habitually reshelve, etc.

The "Pittsburgh Study" got into deep hot water by claiming a
relationship between in-house use and circulation about 20
years ago. The Pittsburgh faculty senate disputed the
methodology and repudiated the results.

[cf Casimir Borkowski and M.J. N. MacLeod. 1979. Report on the
Kent study of library use: a University of Pittsburgh reply.
Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory. 3:125-151]

[Robert N. Broadus, 1983. The use of serial titles in libraries
with special reference to the Pittsburgh study. Collection Management.
5,1/2:27-41]

[Robert M. Hayes, 1981. The distribution and use of library materials:
analysis of data from the University of Pittsburgh. Library Research.
3:215-260.  �Abstract: ... results of the analysis suggest that
circulation is NOT an adequate index of all use."

[Alan Kent, et al. 1978. A Cost-Benefit Model of Some Critical Library
Operations in Terms of Use of Materials. Springfield VA: NTIS PB 282 059.
Known as the �Pittsburgh Study,�]

[Melvin J. Voigt, 1979. Circulation studies cannot reflect research use.
Journal of Academic Librarianship. 5(May):66]

I hope this is helpful.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>