Community Needs Assessment Process Group
March 1998
PART 2: Focus Group Interviews Report
Introduction
In order to facilitate better understanding of the results derived from the Survey of Seat Occupancy, CNAPG undertook a series of focus group interviews in each library with students who use these facilities.
Methodology
Four focus group interviews were scheduled at the Davis Centre Library and four at the Dana Porter Library during the week of November 10-14, 1997. This week was selected so as to fall immediately after midterms, and well before final exams.
The members of CNAPG, Amos Lakos, Sharon Lamont, Connie Pantic, and Shabiran Rahman planned and conducted the focus group interviews. Library administration and Graphics provided financial support.
Recruitment
Participants were recruited by three methods and were advised that they would receive a $10 photocopy card if they did participate:
Although of 109 students signed up, a total of 74 students actually participated in one of the eight sessions. One person attended a session at both Davis and Porter.
- 43 students participated in the Davis sessions and 31 in the Porter sessions.
- Average attendance at each session was 7.8 at Porter and 10.8 at Davis with an overall average of 9.3.
- Davis had a maximum of 13 and a minimum of 7 participants per session..
- Porter had a maximum of 11 and a minimum of 4 participants per session.
- 68% of the students who signed up did participate (67% at Davis; 69% at Porter).
1) Signs: ten days before the first group interview was scheduled, large signs were posted near the Library exits with detachable signup forms. A "Study Space Drop Box" was available on an adjacent table for those people interested in participating to leave the signup forms. The drop box was monitored daily so that contact could be made as soon as possible.
- 71 students were recruited through the signs at the exits (65% of total).
- 48 of the students recruited in this manner did attend (68%), specifically 26 of 39 at Davis (67%) and 22 of 32 at Porter (69%).
2) Phone calls: 161 students were contacted by telephone. These students were selected on the basis of their entry in a photocopy card draw at the conclusion of a library tour. 138 of those called had participated in a Library tour in Fall 1996 and had not given prior permission to be contacted (at the request of the Office of Human Research and Animal Care, each person was informed of how we got their name); 23 had attended a Library Tour in 1997 and had agreed to be contacted. A clerical assistant was hired for twelve hours at a cost of approximately $100 to place these calls.
- 28 students were recruited through a phone call (26% of total).
- 21 of the recruited students did attend (75%), specifically 13 of 18 at Davis (72%) and 8 of 10 at Porter (80%).
Those students who gave permission for the library to contact them (i.e., attended the 1997 tour) were more likely to agree on the phone to participate than did those who had not given prior permission (i.e., 1996 tour). Of those that did sign up however, the students from the 1997 group were less likely to show up.
- Of the 138 students from 1996 that were contacted, 19 signed up (14%), and 16 participated (84%).
- Of the 23 students from 1997 that were contacted, 9 signed up (39%), and 5 participated (56%).
3) E-mail: 41 students who participated in a library tour in Fall 1997 and gave permission for the library to contact them were contacted by e-mail.
- Of the 41 students contacted by e-mail, 10 actually signed up (24%).
- Of the 10 that signed up, only 5 actually participated (50%), specifically 4 of 7 at Davis (57%) and 1 of 3 at Porter (33%).
Process
Once recruited, each student was sent an information letter via e-mail if they provided an e-mail address; if not, it was sent by surface mail. Those participants who were recruited by telephone were also sent the information letter, even though they did receive specific information about where and when their particular session would take place during the initial call.
The information letter provided general information about the project and indicated the location and time of the session. In addition, it stated that the facilitator would ask the following questions:
1. What do you like about study space in the Davis Centre/Porter library?
2. What do you dislike about study space in the Davis Centre/Porter library?
3. Are there other issues about study space that we should discuss further?
Before each session began, all participants were required to complete a letter of consent indicating that they had been informed about the purpose and methodology of the interviews.
Each session took one hour, including the time required to complete the letters of consent and introductions. Sharon Lamont and Connie Pantic each facilitated two of the Davis sessions; Amos Lakos facilitated all of the Porter sessions. During the sessions, the facilitators made flipchart notes while a recorder took additional thorough notes. The sessions were audiotaped.
At the conclusion of each session, participants were given two $5 photocopy cards. In addition, once the sessions were completed, the University Librarian sent a letter of appreciation to each participant.
Expenses
The cost to the Library of running the focus groups (not including regular library staff time for the administrative work) was $530.66. As the cost of the photocopy cards was divided between the Library and Graphics as per prior arrangement; the cost to Graphics was $387.50.
General Comments - both libraries
Students have a positive attitude towards the university library. The library is viewed as a place where they can study and work, a place to replenish energies and also as a social place, where they meet colleagues and friends. The library is an integral part of many students' daily activities.
In general, students care about the physical attributes of the library buildings, such as light, available free personal space, relative cleanliness, physical comfort and available services such as food services and washrooms. Students regard carrels as individual quiet study spaces, and tables as areas where a certain amount of noise and social interaction is the norm.
Students appreciate the work staff do in providing services. They also look to staff as authority figures and expect them to act as such.
A common issue for both libraries is the upkeep and service of light fixtures in the carrels.
Students have different perceptions and attitudes toward the two libraries. Each library seems to attract students with distinct needs.
Davis Library - Report and Observations
General Observations:
The Davis Library is viewed as a "popular" place, a social environment. Students like the liveliness, the "buzz" of activity at Davis. Students are always assured of finding a friend or a classmate.
As Davis is comprised of only two physical levels, its popularity has some negative effects. The library as a whole may seem too small and cramped for the number of students it tries to serve - there is insufficient group study space. The difficulty of containing or limiting the noise level results in lack of consideration for others. The noise level increasingly distresses students, the closer the exam period gets. Students complain about a general lack of cleanliness and the amount of garbage.
Physical Space (layout and location):
Davis is close to food and beverage outlets and students can get to them without leaving any building - which is advantageous especially during the winter.
In general, lighting is poor, with natural light provided only on the periphery of the huge library space on the main floor. However, there are not enough additional light sources along the windows and under the skylights, which results in areas of relative darkness in the evenings.
The furniture layout, especially the concentration of tables near the windows, aggravates the noise problem. Carrels are too close to the noisy CD-ROM printers.
Noisy recycling bins are too close to the designated quiet study areas.
Air quality is perceived as poor, with complaints about lack of air circulation and static electricity. The temperature fluctuates near the large windows, and students complained about food odours and leftover foods.
Students would prefer large and clean bathrooms as well as water fountains on all levels, particularly on the lower level, which currently has none.
Furniture:
Tables - are viewed as areas where a certain amount of noise and social interaction is the norm. Tables allow students to "spread out" their study materials to increase their personal study space. Tables are popular when a group of students want to study together. Students would like to have a number of smaller tables in quiet areas. Many students would prefer to have four chairs per table, instead of six.
Carrels - are viewed as quieter and designed for individual study and privacy. Complaints focused on the issue of burned out light bulbs, difficulties with the fixtures and lack of upkeep. Maintenance of lighting fixtures is a major concern.
Chairs - most participants liked the chairs available in Davis. One discussion group decided to focus on the issue of chairs and ranked them. The black sofa chairs on the lower level are the favourites for reading. For studying, the black chairs with a chrome base were deemed most comfortable and the wooden chairs with leather material the least comfortable. However, some participants found all chairs to be uncomfortable.
Group Study Rooms:
Students wanted to have access to group study rooms in order to work together on projects. They would like better soundproofing of the existing study rooms and a sign-up system for their use.
Services:
Resources - students like the availability of library resources: material resources (reserves, books, journals and reference materials) and staff resources. They also viewed their own classmates as resources. Some indicated that they would like more copies of reserves materials to be made available and a waiting list developed for reserves readings.
Staff - many students would like library staff to enforce library regulations, especially as they reflect on noise, food and unguarded possessions. Students are not comfortable confronting each other when they have to deal with issues of this sort. They would prefer that library staff be more proactive in enforcing rules.
Cleanliness - the discussion on this issue was extremely animated. Most students did not mind that others consumed food in the library, although they unanimously abhorred the overflowing garbage cans, and the "cafeteria" appearance that resulted from students having "dinner parties" in the library. Washrooms were also singled out for being dirty, smelly and often out of paper products.
Disability Centre - mentioned by two students with appreciation but one with self-interest, noting that as the Disability Centre was not well used, he could always find space there for quiet study.
Security:
Personal Property - lack of any safe place to leave personal property. Several individuals advocated the provision of lockers. The issue however was mainly perceived as a campus-wide problem, particularly for off-campus students with heavy textbooks and during the winter months due to heavy coats and sweaters. Another matter of concern related to this issue is that personal property, when left unattended for long periods, denies study space to others.
Exit Security Check - three out of four groups dislike the bag check at the library exit. One group indicated that this feature is counterindicative to our reputation as a high-tech university. Most students resented the intrusion into their privacy, the delays these checks necessitate, and that the checks are not deterring theft.
Dana Porter Library - Report and Observations
General Observations:
Dana Porter Library seems to attract mostly students who want to study independently, and are looking for the privacy Porter makes available. Although some use Porter for group study, it seems to be viewed more as an individual study space structure.
The building is viewed as a clean and quiet place, although some observed that it is physically gloomy.
Physical Space (layout and location):
Porter is viewed positively for its central location on campus and negatively for being isolated from sources of food and drink.
Students like the availability of many windows on the upper floors and the large windows on the 2nd floor as a source of natural light. The availability of light is one of the most expressed physical needs. They complain that the overhead fluorescent lighting is inadequate both in quantity and in their placement. They also complained that they were not well maintained.
Temperature seems to be comfortable, although there are complaints about the air quality and air circulation in the building.
Students would prefer more space between carrels so that they may have adequate personal space. They would also like more mixing up of furniture, with more tables interspersed with the carrels, but not on all floors.
Students would like more accurate and visible signage for floor maps and for services.
Furniture:
Tables - are used for shared study or to spread out books and documents. Many students would prefer to have four chairs per table, instead of six.
Carrels - are used for the privacy they provide. There are major problems with the light fixtures. A high percentage of carrels have defective lights. The problems include flickering neon, humming, noisy fixtures, defective lighting strings and missing elements. Students expressed a need for more space in and around the carrels - they are too congested. Some students are also aware of the need for plug-ins for laptops and other electronic devices.
Chairs - are valued for their ability to keep students awake - they are viewed as awkward and uncomfortable.
Group Study Rooms:
Although study rooms are popular, their location and the availability of the study rooms seem to be a mystery for most students. The library needs a clear policy and a "bookings" system for the use of the study rooms.
Services:
Library staff are appreciated for the services they provide, and as sources of information. Students would like to see more attention given to the physical upkeep of the computer facilities, especially to the timely servicing of jammed printers. Students would also prefer to see library staff be proactive in enforcing library rules
Students need to be better informed about library services and policies. Many students do not know who to ask for information. Students would like more accurate and visible signage for floor maps and for services.
Students would like public terminals made available on all the Porter floors.
Students would like vending machines for food and drink installed in the library - possibly with seating or lounging area included.
Security:
Students would like campus phones made available on all the Porter floors - for safety reasons.
Possibilities for Action
"The Community Needs Assessment Process Group (CNAPG) would like these suggestions from the focus group participants to be considered for further action."
Furniture - develop a visible numbering system for all the furniture for two purposes -
- it will enable students to readily identify furniture in need of repair.
- they will be able to indicate to others where they are studying.
Tables - restrict the number of chairs for each table to four.
Carrels -
- increase space between carrels.
- review the maintenance of defective lights. The problems are with flickering neon, humming, noisy fixtures, defective lighting strings and missing elements. This may also be a safety hazard issue.
Layout - - review the current type of furniture used and the furniture layout for possible improvements with a view to increased sensitivity to noise issues, physical comfort, light and access to electronic resources. Mix tables with carrels on more floors in Porter. This will answer the expressed need for more group study space and a less sombre environment for those who find Porter too quiet.
Signage - review the signage in order to make the physical layout and the available resources and services more comprehensible to students.
Services - investigate the possibilities of providing a specific area in Porter where food and beverages could be purchased and consumed.
Group Study Rooms -
- make the availability and use policy of study rooms more known to students.
- produce a "bookings" system for the study rooms.
Message Centre - investigate putting a white board outside the library entrance or near the front of the library so that people can leave messages for their friends so they can more easily find each other in the library or on campus. This suggestion was made with the goal of cutting down on the amount of traffic and the associated noise in the library due to people looking everywhere for their friends and study partners, particularly in Davis.
Security - make campus phones available on all library floors in both libraries.