NASIG Newsletter

2008 CONFERENCE EVALUATION REPORT
TAKING THE STING OUT OF SERIALS!
JUNE 5-8, 2008

Submitted by the 2008 Evaluation & Assessment Committee
Lori Terrill (Chair), Ann Doyle Fath (Co-Chair), Carole Bell, Jana Brubaker, Sarah Corvene, Susan Davis, Janice Lindquist, Martha Spring, Christina Torbert

NASIG’s 23rd annual conference was held in Phoenix, Arizona, at the Tapatio Cliffs Resort. The conference featured four pre-conferences, three vision sessions, thirteen strategy sessions, fifteen tactics sessions, and six poster sessions. Other events included an opening reception at the resort’s Falls Water Village, dine-arounds in Scottsdale, and a reception at the Phoenix Art Museum.

This year, 328 of the 520 conference attendees filled out the online evaluation form. The 63% response rate is one of the best in NASIG history. This boost of 9% over last year’s response rate may be attributed in part to reminders made to non-member attendees via new functionality with ArcStone’s administrative module and a reminder posted to SERIALST. This was the first year that evaluation forms were only available online. As a special incentive to fill out the forms, the Executive Board approved a drawing for a free conference registration for 2009 or 2010. The drawing was entered by 258 of the individuals who filled out the evaluation forms. The winner was announced in the NASIG Newsletter.

CONFERENCE RATING

Respondents were asked to give ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating. The overall rating for the 2008 conference was 4.36, slightly higher than last year’s conference which rated 4.23. Respondents were asked to rate several aspects related to conference facilities and local arrangements. These ratings averaged 4.30. Comments were divided between those who loved the resort location and others who found it to be too isolated. The Phoenix location rated 4.15, just below Louisville’s rating of 4.18. The meeting rooms (4.44) and hotel rooms (4.66) received slightly higher ratings than last year. The meals (4.21) and breaks (4.16) were also rated somewhat higher than last year. Attendees were overwhelmingly pleased with the opportunities for breaks and small group interactions. Comments noted a desire for light snacks at the breaks. Social events rated 4.19, slightly down from last year’s 4.21 rating. Many attendees noted that they would prefer to have sign-up sheets for dine-arounds as in previous years.

Online conference information, including the conference Web site, forum, and conference blog, rated 4.24, 3.58, and 3.51 respectively. Comments suggested that there may be some confusion over the purpose of the forum and blog: Are they intended to convey information before the conference or for use during the conference? Some felt they could have been better publicized and utilized. Another new feature over the past year was the creation of an online NASIG store for conference souvenirs. The majority of respondents (72%) have not visited the store or have no opinion about it. Those who are happy with the selection came in at 23% and those who are not at 5%. Suggestions included several requests for shirt colors other than white, and the addition of useful items like notepads, pens, hats, magnets, and book bags.

Many attendees expressed their thanks to the Conference Planning Committee and Program Planning Committee for all their hard work.

PROGRAM

This year the program followed a “no-repeat” format where most sessions were not repeated. Attendees were split on the topic, with 34.7% in favor of continuing the practice, 37% neutral or uncertain, and 28.3% preferring the old format of repeating strategy and tactics sessions. Respondents were asked if the layout and explanation of program choices was easy to understand. This area received a 3.98 rating, up from a 3.47 rating last year. Respondents were also asked if there was a balance in the types of programs offered. This aspect rated 4.02, up from 3.95 last year. A few people recommended the Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference as a model for how to do the program.

This year the conference featured three vision sessions. Marshall Breeding’s “Next Generation Library Automation: Its Impact on the Serials Community” received a 3.89 rating. “Information Shadows: Ubiquitous Computing Serializes Everyday Things” with Mike Kuniavsky received a 4.30 rating. The final vision session, “Discovery and Delivery: Making It Work for Users” with Carol Pitts Diedrichs rated a 4.02. The average rating for vision sessions this year was 4.07, up from last year’s average of 3.98.

The thirteen strategy sessions this year generated ratings from 3.78 to 4.50, with an average rating of 4.11. Ten of the programs rated 4.0 or higher, with the highest rating going to Paul Harwood’s “USKG Project Transfer.”

There were fifteen tactics sessions offered in Phoenix. Ratings ranged from 3.11 to 4.49 with an average of 3.89. Eight sessions scored 4.0 or higher. The highest-rated tactics session was “Journal Title Display and Citation Practices” presented by Les Hawkins, Regina Reynolds, and Steve Shadle.

Six poster sessions were presented this year. Ratings ranged from 3.48 to 4.08, averaging 3.80. Deberah England’s “Solved at First Sting: A Flowchart to take the Deadly Sting Out of Troubleshooting E-Resources” received the highest rating of the group.

There were four pre-conferences offered this year with ratings from 4.00 to 5.00, with an average rating of 4.35. David Lee King’s “Emerging Trends, 2.0, and Libraries” received the highest overall rating of the group.

OTHER CONFERENCE EVENTS

The Phoenix conference featured some returning and some new special programming events. The user group sessions averaged a 3.72 rating and the informal discussion groups averaged a 3.78 rating. The majority of respondents would like to continue both types of sessions. The speed dating session to meet publishers rated 3.70. The majority of respondents (57.6%) were uncertain if this session should be continued in the future, 34.7% indicated that it should be continued, and 7.6% that it should not. The First-Timers/Mentoring Reception rated a 3.93 with strong support for continuing this event in the future. The Brainstorming Session received a rating of 3.77. Sixty percent of respondents support continuing this event in the future. Comments indicate a need for better advertising of the session, including announcing the topic beforehand. The Business Meeting rated a 3.65. Finally, a new session called “Meet the Board Members” received a 3.47 rating and majority (65%) support for its continuation at future conferences. Comments indicated that it could have been better publicized and its purpose explained.

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

As in past years, academic library employees represented the largest group (73.2%) of respondents. This includes university (196), college (37), and community college (6) librarians. Responses from the vendor and publisher community, including subscription vendors (12), publishers (12), book vendors (3), database providers (2), automated systems vendors (1), and binders (1), comprised 9.5% of the total respondents. Attendees from specialized libraries, including medical (9), law (10) and special or corporate libraries (7) made up 8% of respondents. Other types of institutions included government, national, or state libraries (4.3%); public libraries (1.5%); library networks, consortia, or utilities (0.6%); students (0.6%); and those selecting “other” (2.1%).

Respondents were asked to describe their work, selecting more than one category as applicable. The largest respondent groups identified themselves as serials librarians (47.7%), electronic resources librarians (36.3%), acquisitions librarians (30.5%), and catalog/metadata librarians (27.7%). Collection development librarians comprise 17.2% of respondents, technical services managers make up 15.1%, and licensing/rights management positions constitute 14.8%. All other categories were selected by fewer than 10% of respondents.

When asked for their amount of serials-related experience, nearly half (48%) are in the first decade of their serials careers, including those with less than a year (11), 1-3 years (34), 4-6 years (46), and 7-10 years (66). Those with 11-20 years experience comprise 25% of respondents and those with more than 20 years comprise 27%.

Most were repeat NASIG attendees: 39% of respondents had attended 1-5 previous conferences, 21% had attended 6-10, 11% had attended 11-15, 6% had attended 16-20, and 3% more than 20. First-time attendees represented 20% of respondents.

The Evaluation & Assessment Committee would like to thank everyone who took the time to fill out the online evaluation forms. We continue to be impressed each year with thoughtful comments that reflect a strong interest in continuing to improve upon the high quality conference NASIG puts on each year. Your comments and feedback are vital to the success of future NASIG conferences.