NASIG Newsletter

2007 CONFERENCE EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT
PLACE YOUR BET IN KENTUCKY:  THE SERIALS GAMBLE
May 31-June 3, 2007
Evaluation & Assessment Committee

NASIG’s 22nd annual conference was held in Louisville, Kentucky, at the Galt House Hotel.  The conference began with a selection of preconference workshops, held its opening reception at the Frazier International History Museum and finished up with a bus tour of historic Louisville.  This year’s conference again included a variety of vision, strategy, and tactics sessions.

Two hundred ninety-seven conference evaluations were submitted this year, a 54% response rate.  Although both print and online evaluation forms were available, attendees were strongly encouraged to submit their evaluations online.  98% of respondents used the online forms, and those who provided their names and contact information were automatically entered into a drawing for a free 2008 conference registration.  The winner of the drawing will be announced on NASIG-L.

CONFERENCE RATING

On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being high), survey respondents gave the 2007 conference a rating of 4.23.  The attendees rated the overall conference facilities and local arrangements at 4.20.  Comments indicated general approval of the hotel and environs.  The Louisville location rated slightly lower than Denver (4.51) at 4.18.  The meeting rooms (4.30) and hotel rooms (4.59) received a slightly higher rating than last year.  The meals (4.09) and breaks (3.84) rated somewhat lower than last year, and comments suggested that the distance between the break area and some of the meeting rooms made the breaks feel rushed.  Several respondents expressed a desire for more intuitive and Web-friendly program information online.

PROGRAMS
 

This year the conference presented three vision sessions.  Vision session 1, “The Evolution of Reading and Writing in the Networked Era” with Bob Stein received a 3.80 rating.  Vision session 2, “Hurry Up Please, It’s Time: State of Emergency” with Karen Schneider received a 4.18 rating.  The final vision session, “A New Approach to Library Service Discovery and Resource Delivery” with Daniel Chudnov rated a 3.95.

The eleven strategy sessions this year generated ratings from 3.63 to 4.49, with eight of the eleven sessions rating over 4.0.  The highest rating went to the panel discussion “From Tech Services to Leadership.”  The strategy sessions averaged an overall rating of 4.09.

There were sixteen tactics sessions offered at this conference.  Ratings ranged from 3.41 to 4.56 with nine sessions rated at 4.0 or higher.  The highest-rated tactics session was “Verbal Bourbon: Speaking Secrets to Intoxicate your Audience” presented by Jeff Slagel.  The tactics sessions averaged an overall rating of 4.01.

There were only thirty respondents for the poster sessions.  The overall rating for the poster sessions was 4.31, up from last year’s rating of 4.09.  The majority of respondents (21) felt they had enough time to visit the posters, although several respondents expressed a desire to have the posters up for a longer period and/or have another session with the presenters.  Ratings for the individual poster sessions ranged from 3.76 to 4.28.  The highest rating was for “The CONSER Standard Record” presented by Les Hawkins and Hien Nguyen.

There were four preconferences offered this year and all were very well received with ratings from 4.00 to 5.00.  The comments were overwhelmingly positive for all the sessions.  However, several of the preconference evaluations had a very low response rate (less than 25%), an issue that will be addressed with next year’s evaluation.

SPECIAL PROGRAMS
 

The Louisville conference continued a number of special programming events.  The user group meetings and informal discussion groups rated 3.82 and 4.05 respectively.  The overwhelming majority of respondents wanted both these types of sessions to continue.  The first timers/mentoring reception received a 4.25 rating; comments suggest that first-timers and mentors alike appreciate this event.  The brainstorming session received a rating of 3.23.  Many respondents felt that this type of session is generally useful for the organization, but this year’s topic (encouraging candidates to seek executive office) did not lend itself to open discussion or attract a diversity of viewpoints.  The business meeting (3.82) received approximately the same rating as last year; attendees greatly appreciated the brevity of the meeting.

DEMOGRAPHICS

As in past years, academic librarians represented the largest group (71%) of respondents.  This includes university (170), college (33) and community college (4) librarians.  Attendees from specialized libraries, including medical (13), law (10) and corporate libraries (10) represented the next-largest group (11%) of respondents.  The percentage of responses from the vendor and publisher community including subscription vendors (11), publishers (9), automated systems vendors (3), and database providers (1) was down from 12% last year to 8% this year.  The percentages of respondents from public libraries (7) and consortia (5) were slightly higher than last year; the percentage of responses from government, national or state libraries remained similar to previous years.  Six respondents chose the category “Other,” primarily attendees from museum libraries, research institutes and other categories not clearly defined in the list.

Most respondents were mid- to late-career librarians; 70% of respondents had seven or more years of serials-related experience, up from 65% last year.  Most were also repeat NASIG attendees; 45.3% of respondents had attended 1-5 previous conferences, and 21% had attended 6-10 previous conferences, similar to last year’s percentages.  First-time attendees represented 15.5% of respondents, down from 21% in 2006.

The overwhelming majority of respondents identified themselves as serials (153), electronic resources (104), catalog (89), or acquisitions (81) librarians.  The number of respondents identifying themselves as collection development librarians decreased from 69 in 2006 to 56 this year.  Twenty-two respondents identified themselves as paraprofessionals, an increase from 16 in 2006.  As usual, many respondents identified themselves with multiple categories and various “Other” designations.  Many of those who selected “Other” emphasized middle-management responsibilities that were not among the existing choices.

The Evaluation & Assessment Committee would like to thank everyone who took the time to fill out the evaluation forms.  Your comments and feedback are important as NASIG continues to strive to provide positive conference experiences.  We welcome suggestions regarding the evaluation forms.  Please address comments to Anne Mitchell, amitchell@uh.edu.

Submitted by:
2007 Evaluation & Assessment Committee
Joe Badics, Carole Bell, Jana Brubaker, Sarah Corvene, Susan Davis, Lee Krieger, Anne Mitchell (Chair), Martha Spring, Lori Terrill (Co-Chair), Alison Roth (Board Liaison)