Executive Summary

Introduction 

In 2023, the U-M Library conducted its first campus-wide survey in order to learn about the library-related needs and experiences of U-M undergraduates, graduate students, faculty members, clinicians, postdoctoral fellows, and staff. The survey was designed, administered, and analyzed by the Library Campus Survey Team. We asked questions about the library’s spaces, collections, and services. The resulting data set illuminates where we are serving people consistently and effectively, and where we can make improvements. In future years the survey will be used again to assess continuity and change in library users’ needs and experiences.

Participation

In November 2023, invitations to participate were emailed to 102,604 students, faculty, and staff at U-M Ann Arbor. The final sample of 15,118 people was quite diverse with regard to U-M employee job types, the disciplinary areas of students and faculty, and demographic factors such as race, gender, disability status, socioeconomic status, nationality, and age. The survey questions and information about the variables in the data set (i.e., the ‘codebook’) are available in the linked PDFs.

How We're Using the Survey Data

Over the past year, we’ve analyzed over 15,000 responses and began conversations within U-M Library about the needs of our campus community. We are currently incorporating what we’ve learned into our 2025 library-wide strategic planning initiative. At a service-by-service level, over 40 library teams have requested survey data related to their work. Each request results in rich and customized findings; many teams are already using insights from the these analyses to make service improvements and drive decision making. 

Importantly, a common theme across several sections of the survey was how many people were surprised to learn about existing library services. In response, we’ve been ramping up our communication efforts, including launching a newsletter for U-M staff members to complement the messaging we already send to students and faculty on a regular basis.

>>> Learn about our response rate and survey respondents and methods for analyses.

Overview of Findings

One of the most impressive things about the data we collected was the consistent positivity  expressed by respondents about our library system’s spaces, services, collections, and employees. It’s clear that most people love the U-M Library!

Overall Library Use

Eighty-four percent of respondents had used the U-M Library in some way; the 16% who had not used the library were predominantly staff members, many of whom indicated that they did not know they were allowed to use the library. 

Library use, by campus role, was as follows:

• Faculty, Visiting Scholars, Postdocs, and House Officers 90%

• Undergraduates 96%

• Graduate students 95%

• Staff members 67%

>>> Learn more at Overview of Library Use.

Library Spaces and Accessibility

People who had visited library buildings were asked about their experiences of belonging, safety, respect for diversity, and welcomeness. Ratings on each of the scales were quite positive. Negative ratings were rare, and people who provided them were invited to add explanatory comments. As one example, undergraduates were more likely than other groups to write about difficulties finding available seats, and wanted more spaces to study individually and collaboratively. In another example, comments from those who have felt unsafe in the library included accounts of being harassed. These types of safety issues, though rare, will be considered when planning building policies and forms of communication.

>>> Go to Library Spaces: Atmosphere for more details.

Undergraduate students are the most frequent users of library spaces, with most indicating that they visit a library building at least once a week. On average, graduate students visit the library a few times per month, faculty members a few times a semester, and staff members about once a semester (among those who do use the library). In the analyses of race groups, Black/African-American students and faculty visited the library less, in person, compared to most other groups. The magnitude of these differences was small but notable, and respondents’ comments will be used to learn more about what might explain this disparity.

>>> Learn more at Library Spaces.

Wayfinding in library spaces was rated as especially difficult when people are new to campus; 35%  of respondents had trouble wayfinding at first, and roughly 30% sometimes or often have trouble even after their initial experiences. The most confusing building for people to navigate is Hatcher. Those with disabilities had, on average, more trouble with wayfinding compared to people without disabilities, which signals that wayfinding is an accessibility concern that needs to be addressed.

>>> Learn more at Wayfinding and Appropriate Spaces.

There were many positive ratings and comments about the benefits of using library spaces. Undergraduate students in particular, however, described having a hard time finding the types of spaces they are looking for due to overcrowding and noise. The new Clark Commons space in Shapiro was showered with positive feedback, but was also the object of frustration due to the difficulty of finding open seats on the floor.

Library users with suspected, temporary, or permanent disabilities made up approximately 12% of our sample. Library users with disabilities reported more trouble finding private space compared to those without disabilities, and also had significantly more trouble finding comfortable furniture. Further, 21% of users with disabilities encountered at least one physical barrier when using library spaces, compared to just 6% of users without disabilities.

>>> Go to Space Accessibility for more details.

Collection Use

The U-M Library sits in the top 25 libraries in the world with regard to collection size. We hold a large number of collection areas and, as expected, each of these areas is used most often by faculty and students doing academic work within that subject area (e.g., the Arts & Humanities collection has been used by 92% of our respondents working in the humanities, but only 19% of those outside this area).

Continuing with the trend of mostly positive ratings, roughly 93% of collection users feel that the library’s collections usually or always meet their needs. Further, the collection services in the library — ILL and document scanning — were rated positively by 95% of those who have used them. There was, however, a pronounced lack of awareness that these services existed (30% were not aware of ILL, and 43% were not aware of the scanning service). Here and elsewhere, the lack of user awareness concerning key library offerings presents an opportunity to conduct outreach and education across campus.

>>> Visit the Collections section for more details.

Supporting Research and Creative Scholarship (RCS)

One large section of the survey asked graduate students and faculty members — who indicated having experience leading scholarly projects — about the library’s support for this aspect of their work. 

As we explored this aspect of our library’s services, we paid special attention to the scholarly disciplines represented, as follows, in our sample:

• Creative scholarship 11% 

• Humanities   18%

• Social sciences 32%

• Natural sciences 23%

• Engineering   19%

• Medical and health sciences  37%

• Professional fields   9%

Many scholars identified with multiple scholarship areas. 66% of faculty members had led an RCS project within the past 2 years, and the same was true for 38% of our graduate student respondents. These scholars were the focus of the questions in this section of the survey.

We used the RCS lifecycle as a framework to assess library usage by U-M researchers and creators. The following percentages of scholars use the library for key aspects of the RCS lifecycle:

• Reviewing literature > 90% of faculty and graduate students

• Managing sources/citations > 80% of faculty and graduate students

• Seeking funding 57% of students and 74% of faculty

• Gathering data > 70% of faculty and graduate students

• Analyzing data > 80% of faculty and graduate students

• Distributing creative work < 15% of faculty and graduate students

• Writing for publication 74% of students and 90% of faculty

• Digital scholarship 31% of students and 47% of faculty

• Archiving RCS materials 34% of students and 45% of faculty

We also sought ratings on how adequate the library’s support was in each of these areas:

• Reviewing literature 93% positive ratings

• Citation management 88% positive ratings

• Seeking funding 75% positive ratings

• Gathering data 87% positive ratings

• Analyzing data 86% positive ratings

• Sharing data 88% positive ratings

• Distributing creative work 80% positive ratings

• Writing for publication 90% positive ratings

• Digital scholarship 88% positive ratings

• Archiving RCS materials 87% positive ratings

The ratings indicate broad user satisfaction, and also room for improvement. Respondents' open-ended comments can be used to guide plans for improvement.

With regard to publishing:

• 57% of graduate student respondents involved in RCS had already published, and the same was true for 94% of faculty

• The majority (>75%) of those who had not yet published were planning to do so

• 80% of graduate students and 85% of faculty members involved in RCS have or plan to publish their work in open-access (OA) venues

• 47% of graduate students and 66% of faculty members indicted that publication fees are a deterrent to taking an OA approach to publishing

• Only 18% of graduate students and 32% of faculty members were aware of the OA publishing discounts for U-M authors listed on library website

• 55% of faculty members and 73% of graduate students rated support at U-M for OA publishing as adequate or more than adequate

The library offers many other supports to those active in RCS. In most cases, usage and awareness of these supports was quite low, but percentages rating the services as adequate or more than adequate were high. 

Examples of positive adequacy ratings include:

• Consultation with library expert 95%

• Digital scholarship services (only of those doing DS) 93%

• Online research guides 96%

• Funding & grant info 84%

• Research impact guidance 79%

• Deep Blue 96%

• Publishing services 92%

• Data visualization 89%

• Data sharing and management help 93%

>>> Learn more in the Research and Creative Scholarship section.

Support for Teaching and Learning at U-M

Two final sections of the survey explored how the library’s services and resources are used by faculty who teach and by students who are enrolled in courses.

>>> Go to Instructor Experience and Student Experience for more details.

Supporting Instructors

The following percentages of our instructor respondents received various types of teaching support from the library:

• 38% placed physical copies of course materials on reserve

- Of those, 94% felt their need was mostly or completely met

• 31% asked the library to scan a chapter or article

- Of those, 98% felt their need was mostly or completely met

• 24% asked for help with films, video, or other multimedia

- Of those, 96% felt their need was mostly or completely met

• 21% asked the library to provide a stable URL for a resource

- Of those, 95% felt their need was mostly or completely met

• 18% asked the library to purchase an ebook or eresource

- Of those, 96% felt their need was mostly or completely met

• 43% of instructors had not asked for any of the types of help listed above

Instructors were asked about the types of library resources they have used to support their teaching. The following are examples of the U-M Library resources used for teaching, and the percentages of instructors using them:

• Journals   53%

• Books 44%

• Databases 41%

• Building spaces 18%

• Special collections 10%

• Data sets 8%

• None of the above 28%

Importantly, we assessed how instructors sought out library teachers to compliment their courses. Below are percentages of instructors who received the following from the library:

• Library instruction for students in a group: 19%

- Of those, 99% rated this help as adequate or more than adequate

• Tailored library consultation for their students: 12%

- Of those, 99% rated this help as adequate or more than adequate

• Help designing a curriculum, session, or project: 10%

- Of those, 99% rated this help as adequate or more than adequate

• Library guidance for students about evaluating information: 9%

- Of those, 100% rated this help as adequate or more than adequate

• None of the above: 63%

74% of instructors rated the impact of the library on their teaching as positive, and most others (22%) said that the library did not have a positive or negative impact.

Supporting Students

For undergraduate and graduate students taking classes, the library was listed as the top study spot, after one’s own residence (i.e., the library was used more often for studying than any other spot on campus).

For both undergraduate and graduate students:

• Databases, journals, books, and library spaces were rated as especially critical for doing coursework.

• High percentages (> 94% in every case) rated the library resources they used for coursework as adequate or more than adequate.

• Using library resources allowed them to save money on course materials (79% of undergraduates, and 90% of graduate students).

• Nearly all (97%) who reported that a library instructor had visited their classes rated the library instruction sessions as meeting their needs.

• Most (78% of undergraduates and 80% of graduate students) indicated that the library had helped them with their coursework in some way; <1% of each group felt that the library had exerted a negative impact on their coursework.

Summary of Findings

Across the hundreds of questions and thousands of participants contained in the campus survey data set, experiences with the library and its resources were typically rated as helpful or adequate and above. 

Some of the library’s offerings were well known to most (such as spaces, books, journals), whereas many other library offerings were less known to people. Many respondents reported that the survey itself had raised their awareness of library offerings, and it was common to see open-ended comments asking for more communication from the library about what it can do for people. 

There were notable group differences in some areas of library experience; the most pronounced was that people with disabilities, compared to people without disabilities, found certain aspects of the library more difficult to use. 

Overall the findings indicate that (a) the library is serving people well, (b) it can do much better with regard to accessibility, and (c) finding new ways to share information about the library’s offerings would be welcome across campus.