Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections on Scholarly Reading in Finland

University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Tennessee, Knoxville

TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative

Exchange Exchange

School of Information Sciences -- Faculty

Publications and Other Works

School of Information Sciences

6-2019

Bene=ts and Outcomes of Library Collections on Scholarly Bene=ts and Outcomes of Library Collections on Scholarly

Reading in Finland Reading in Finland

Carol Tenopir

University of Tennessee - Knoxville

Sanna Talja

University of Tampere

Elina Late

University of Tampere

Lisa Christian

Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_infosciepubs

Part of the Collection Development and Management Commons, and the Scholarly Communication

Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Tenopir, Carol; Talja, Sanna; Late, Elina; and Christian, Lisa, "Bene=ts and Outcomes of Library Collections

on Scholarly Reading in Finland" (2019).

School of Information Sciences -- Faculty Publications and Other

Works.

https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_infosciepubs/103

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information Sciences at TRACE: Tennessee

Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Information Sciences -- Faculty

Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative

Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Carol Tenopir*, Sanna Talja, Elina Late and Lisa Christian

Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

on Scholarly Reading in Finland

https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2018-0139

Received October 23, 2018; accepted February 15, 2019

Abstract: Results of an online survey distributed to

faculty, PhD students, and researchers throughout

Finland in 2016 show that library resources, journal arti-

cles, and books are important parts of scholars’ research

and work life. The survey was disseminated through

FinELib to heads of libraries, who were then asked to

distribute it to their academic staff, researchers, and PhD

students. The purpose of this study was to examine the

value of readings obtained from library collections. To

help answer this question, participants were asked about

the amount and value of their reading and where they

obtained readings, which allowed comparison of how the

value of the library collection differs from other sources.

The study found that researchers use many ways to iden-

tify and obtain articles, and the library collection is iden-

tified as one important source. Scholars use the library’s

collection mostly to obtain articles for research and those

articles help to inspire new ideas. Overall, this study

demonstrates the importance of access to scholarly pub-

lications for scholars, from the library and elsewhere,

such as open access sites and research sharing platforms.

Keywords: scholarly journals, reading, library collections,

access to information resources

Introduction

Libraries have long measured their value by numbers—the

size of their collections, the numbers of visitors to their

buildings, those who participate in instructional sessions,

and how often library e-materials are downloaded. These

numbers demonstrate value to a certain degree: i. e. show-

ing implied value by assuming that the act of downloading

an article or visiting a building or taking a library instruction

course demonstrate use and benefits, enabling comparison

over time or with other populations, or demonstrating what

services or collections are most popular. Measuring the

results or outcomes from these activities, however, can pro-

vide a more nuanced view of the value by looking at the

benefits to stakeholders by participating in the activities

enabled by the library.

In the context of collections, it is more difficult to

measure outcomes or benefits of reading rather than mea-

sure the implied value provided by downloads or circula-

tion statistics. Measuring outcomes can show what

happens after seeking, finding, and downloading informa-

tion resources and how reading contributes to academic

work. Capturing outcomes goes beyond mere popularity to

dig deeper into long-lasting impacts or benefits to readers.

One reading may have a profound impact on a research-

er’s work, while others may only satisfy curiosity.

Examining the range of outcomes provides a complete

picture of the impact of reading.

This study looks at scholarly work-related reading

patterns and outcomes of that reading among faculty

members, PhD students, and other researchers throughout

the country of Finland. It was patterned after reading

studies conducted over the last four decades, first in the

United States and then in several other countries (Tenopir

and King 2000; Wilson and Tenopir 2008; Tenopir et al.

2009, 2010a, 2010b; Tenopir, Volentine, and King 2012;

Tenopir et al. 2015). A comprehensive look at reading in

Finland has not been conducted before, as previous stu-

dies only looked at reading of e-journal articles and did

not examine reading in print or scholarly readings from

other types of resources such as books. Although the

current study looked at readings and outcomes of reading

from all sources, this article takes a closer look at print

and electronic article and book readings that came from

the library and departmental collections to show how

library article and book collections contribute to the scho-

larly work of research, teaching, and service, while also

compares the characteristics of those readings with read-

ings from other sources. Other articles based on the data

collected for this study will focus on more general reading

patterns of scholarly articles, books, and other materials

from a wide range of sources.

*Corresponding author: Carol Tenopir, School of Information

Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA,

E-mail: [email protected]

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9056-8251

Sanna Talja: E-mail: [email protected], Elina Late:

E-mail: [email protected], Faculty of Information Technology and

Communication, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Lisa Christian, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

LIBRI 2019; 69(2): 153–168

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

The overarching research question that this paper

addresses is what is the unique value of readings

obtained from library collections? In order to understand

this question, several specific research questions are

addressed in this paper:

1. What are the characteristics (age, rank, job responsi-

bilities, and subject discipline) of researchers who

utilize library-related collections?

2. In what ways do scholarly article and book readings

contribute to the work of researchers?

3. What is the value, in terms of outcomes or benefits to

readers, of readings from library collections?

4. How does the contribution and value/benefits of

readings from library collections differ from readings

obtained from other sources?

Although this study took place in a single country

(Finland) the methods used and the questionnaire have

been tested many times in other countries, and the meth-

ods have wider applicability. The survey instrument is

included here for adaption and use by others.

Literature Review

The economist Fritz Machlup (1979) provided a philoso-

phical foundation for our methodology in his distinction

between accessing information and understanding or

gaining knowledge from the content. We use the term

reading and use to describe what Machlup considered

knowledge gained from content.

Machlup also recommended the concept of “bene-

fits” rather than “value” to go beyond information seek-

ing o r access to explore the benefits of the consumption

and understanding of information to the user. He

defined h ow measuring value (or benefits) in the infor-

mation context is both the same and different from other

ways to look at value. He described two types of value of

information: (1) p urchase or exchange value, that is,

what one is willing to pay for information in money

and/or time, and (2) use value, that is, the favorable

consequences derived from reading and using the infor-

mation (Machlup 1979, 1962). In the library collecti on

context, purchase or exchange value to the reader is

almost always based o n exchange value or time spent

reading. The library bears the direct cost in monetary

terms for access to content.

This is not the first study to look at value (or benefits)

from reading (or understanding) scholarly information.

Beginning in 1977, King and then Tenopir and King

used a variation of the critical incident technique to

examine scholarly journal article reading patterns and

place the resulting data into the context of exchange

and outcomes value (Tenopir and King 2000, 2004;

Tenopir et al. 2015). These studies showed that academics

read articles for many purposes and the reported value

and outcomes of article reading vary significantly by

purpose. For instance, the most common principal pur-

pose for scholarly reading has long been research and

writing and these readings were rated as more valuable

to purpose.

The role of the library in providing access to scho-

larly journal articles has fluctuated over the years, with a

drastically increased role starting in the mid-1990s as

library electronic journals collections replaced printed

personal subscriptions as the main source of article read-

ings. In the dawn of the 2010s, however, open access and

alternative sources of e-articles began to decrease the

library monopoly on e-access. Still, in studies in

Australia, Finland, and the U.S. from 2007–2010, the

library was the main provider of e-article readings,

accounting for between 50 and 67 % of readings by

faculty members at several universities in these countries

(Wilson and Tenopir 2008; Tenopir, Mays, and Wu 2011;

Tenopir, Volentine, and King 2012).

Although e-books have been a growing part of library

collections for nearly two decades, and, in spite of both

the dramatic switch to ejournals and a robust consumer

market for leisure book reading, library users have been

slower to adopt library e-books than many expected.

Librarians are advised that more outreach and education

about their e-book collections are needed (Ashcroft 2011).

When specifically asked, most scholars in an academic

research library say that scholarly e-book collections

have value to their work, in spite of relatively low rates

of use (Chrzastowski 2011).

E-book use from the library is increasing over time as

collections grow, although inconsistently among different

users (Ahmad and Brogan 2012; Ahmad, Brogan, and

Johnstone 2014). Several recent studies of the attitudes of

faculty and students towards e-books in the academic

setting show a lower than expected uptake, with opinions

varying based on such factors as academic status (under-

graduate students versus graduate students versus

faculty), type of book (textbook versus reference book

versus monograph), and subject discipline (Shin 2011;

Corlett-Rivera and Hackman 2014; Carroll et al. 2016).

According to a recent questionnaire conducted by FinElib

(Mikkonen and Peltonen 2016), availability of e-books was

not experienced as optimal, as simultaneous user rights

were too restricted. Downloading the required reading

154 Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

programs had proved technically challenging, while pro-

blems had been encountered in downloading e-books and

in their browsing and navigation functionalities. The

experienced usability problems and lower than expected

uptake also seem to reflect more fundamental differences

in how books and articles are read and used (Aaltonen

et al. 2011; Walters 2013).

The academic library community has demonstrated

growing concern with assessing library value with several

high-profile initiatives over the last decade. These initia-

tives provide comprehensive reviews of the literature on

library assessment. Rather than repeat all of the litera-

ture, we refer readers to these projects.

The LibValue project, sponsored by the Institute of

Museum and Library Services (IMLS), created a bibliogra-

phy of library assessment literature as it examined a variety

of types of value provided by academic library collections

and services and a variety of ways to measure the value.

LibValue tested many types of value, including exchange,

outcomes, social value, economic value, environmental

value, contingent valuation, and return on investment

and many types of collections (articles, books, and digital

special collections) and services (library instruction, facil-

ities). The project’s research website may be found at

http://libvalue.cci.utk.edu/. In addition, the Association of

Research Libraries, as part of the LibValue team, hosts a

separate website to house the project’s research instru-

ments or toolkit at http://www.libvalue.org/home.

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) had long

been interested in assessing the value of all types of

library collections and services. ARL maintains an active

listserv for assessment librarians to share ideas and

research results and sponsors an assessment conference

every other year (contact [email protected] for further

information).

In 2010, the Association of College & Research

Libraries (ACRL) commissioned a comprehensive litera-

ture analysis on the topic of library assessment. This

report describes methods to assess the value of library

instruction, collections, and services to students and

faculty (Oakleaf 2010). Oakleaf’s work describes strate-

gies for determining academic library value in these mul-

tiple areas (Oakleaf 2010, 2011).

Methodology and Limitations

The study reported here is a nationwide survey of aca-

demics and scholars throughout the country of Finland.

FinELib, the Finnish national consortium based in the

Finnish National Library, distributed the link to an online

questionnaire to heads of libraries throughout Finland in

the autumn of 2016. The librarians, in turn, were asked to

distribute the invitation to participate to their academic

staff, researchers, and PhD students. Some librarians sent

the invitation directly to all in their institutions and

others put the invitation on their library website, while

others chose not to distribute the invitation. In addition,

the researchers sent out an estimated 1,000 invitations

directly to academics. There are an estimated 10,000

academics (EUI 2018) throughout Finland with an

additional ~ 15,000 postgraduate students (OSF 2018),

although we do not know how many of these actually

received the invitation to participate in our study and

hence cannot calculate a response rate. In total, we

received 528 responses; however, to be compliant with

the University of Tennessee IRB approval for research

involving human subjects, respondents were allowed to

skip any question or exit the survey at any time.

Therefore, some questions have fewer than 528 responses

and all analysis was done on the number of respondents

to any one question, rather than on the total number of

respondents to the questionnaire. For this specific study,

the overall total is n = 455 because many respondents

exited the questionnaire before answering many of the

questions analyzed here.

The questionnaire was built in Qualtrics and housed

on the University of Tennessee survey, with analysis done

with SPSS. The questionnaire was available in both

Finnish and English, with 88 % of the respondents choos-

ing to respond to the Finnish version. The Finnish co-

authors on this paper translated the Finnish results into

English for analysis.

The survey i nstrum ent is based on previous sur veys

conductedbyTenopirandKingovertheyears,with

some modifications made to refle ct place or time. For

example, a question was added to determine wh ether

the last article reading was in English, Finnish, or

Swedish ( or another language). In order to examine

readings in addition to article readings, questions were

asked about a wide variety of other types of readings for

work, including social media (Tenopir, Christian, and

Late 2017).

To enable analysis of the value and outcomes of

readings, we asked four types of questions: (1) demo-

graphics (age, rank, job responsibilities, and subject dis-

cipline); (2) recollection questions about how many

articles and other types of materials were read in the

last month; (3) critical incident questions that focus on

the most recent article reading and then the most recent

other type of reading; and (4) open-ended questions on

Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections 155

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

how reading habits have changed and what changes in

publications would be desirable in the future.

Critical incident questions allow a focus on outcomes

by providing an in-depth look at characteristics of read-

ings and how they vary by purpose of reading. The

critical incident of last reading provides a second stage

sample of readings in addition to the first stage sample of

readers. Readers read articles for many reasons and the

value or benefit of each reading to the reader will vary,

sometimes depending on the purpose and sometimes

depending on the quality or usefulness of a particular

reading. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the char-

acteristics and value of this second stage of readings to

get the nuanced view of value.

Note that reading does not mean reading every word

of a document, nor even reading carefully. In the ques-

tionnaire, reading of articles was defined as “going

beyond the table of contents, title, and abstract to the

body of the article” and reading for books “may include

just reading a portion of the book such as skimming or

reading a chapter.” For article readings, readers were

asked how thoroughly they read the last article, ranging

from “I read all of it with great care” to “I skimmed it just

to get the idea.”

Analysis

Sources of Readings and Publication Types

This study examines in depth those questions relevant to

the role of the library in providing access to readings and

the benefits and value associated with those readings,

specifically focusing on readings from journal articles

and books. Article readings and book readings that were

said to come from a library or department collection (most

often paid by the library) were compared with article and

book readings that did not come from the library (or that

the reader did not recognize as coming from the library or

departmental collections). Article readings from 222

respondents, or 49.1 % of the total of 454, were said to

come from the library or departmental subscriptions (here-

inafter referred to as library readings). The 50.9 % of article

readings that did not come from the library or departmen-

tal subscriptions included readings from the web, shared

by colleagues, personal subscriptions, etc. as shown in

Figure 1. Of course, some of these readings may come

from a library without the reader realizing the fact. For

example, included in “other” readings, 5.5 % of the total

readings came from research social networking sites and

readings from the web may include full texts that were

accessible due to authentication and a link resolver acting

on a Google Scholar search.

Journal articles are not, of course, the only source of

scholarly readings. Scholars read from books or book

chapters, conference proceedings or research reports,

newspaper articles, and other types of resources, includ-

ing blogs. Therefore, we also asked respondents to focus

on other types of reading. Asking each respondent a full

range of questions about each type of resource would

have made the questionnaire much too long, resulting

in the decision to just focus on whatever type of material

was read most recently. This decision means that the

numbers for other types vary considerably, from a low

of 17 for “other” and 27 for blogs to a high of 94 for books

or book chapters. Figure 2 shows the variety of places

scholars use to obtain books or book chapters. The library

is the most frequently used source to obtain book read-

ings (43.6 % of book readings); however, colleagues or

personal purchase are also important sources for books.

In this article, we focus only on articles and books/

book chapters, because they are the traditional resources

offered in library collections and still the most likely to be

obtained from the library. Thus, while every respondent

was asked the critical incident questions about articles,

only those who had read a book or book chapter recently

were asked about book readings. Therefore, unlike article

readings which reflect the entire population equally,

book readings are more skewed to those disciplines or

individuals who read more books (e. g. humanities scho-

lars). Of other types of readings, books or book chapters

accounted for about a fourth of a reported 392 readings of

2.40%

49,1

15%

9.70%

19.60%

Source of Journal Article Readings n=452

Personal subscription From the library/department collection

Institutional/subject repository From another person

From the Web Other wa

Figure 1: Source of journal article readings.

156 Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

various types of resources. Since the total number of

book/book chapter readings is much lower than the

total number of article readings, the results may be less

robust. If a library wants to specifically focus on the

value of its print or e-book collections, a survey focusing

only on those readings may be in order.

Overall Characteristics of Article and Book

Readings

Before examining the value of readings that come from

the library, it is helpful to provide an overall picture of

the reported readings. Overall, 86.3 % (n = 392) of the

article readings reported were from electronic sources.

This percentage was even higher in readings from the

library – of the 222 articles that were identified as coming

from the library, 90.5 % were from e-resources. Readers

of articles have almost made the shift from paper journals

to e-sources, but not yet completely. Library purchasing

and nationwide journal licensing preferences for e- over

print both drive and respond to this trend.

However, not all articles obtained from e-sources are

read on the screen, and there is no difference in prefer-

ence for final form of reading from articles obtained from

library or other sources. Printing out an e-article still

occurs in over forty percent of the readings and, when

combined with the small percent that were from print

journals, reading on paper is done for just under half of

all readings (45.7 %, n = 205). Reading on screen, most

often a desktop or laptop, is now more common, but just

slightly so. Readings on a handheld device (mobile

phone, tablet, or other e-reader) account for just a small

percent of article readings (even in a country with near

universal cell phone coverage) (See Tables 1 and 2).

Although a growing number of books from both the

library and elsewhere are available in electronic format,

the nearly complete digital transformation that has hap-

pened for article access has not yet happened for books.

Less than half (43.6 %) of book readings were from

e-books. There is no significant difference in form between

books obtained from the library collections and elsewhere.

Furthermore, over half of the final format of book readings

were printed books (56.4 %, n = 53) with an additional

18.1 % e-books downloaded and printed on paper to read

(Tables 1 and 2). In total, then, approximately three-quar-

ters of book readings were print books (74.5 %), the high-

est for any type of scholarly reading.

Over three-quarters of the article readings (78 %) were

first-time readings, with the remainder being re-readings

(22 %). Readings from the library are slightly more likely to

be re-readings (25.3 % re-readings from the library, as

compared to 18.7 % re-readings from other sources). Only

a quarter of readings from books (26.6 %, n = 25) are re-

readings from the same book, with no significant differ-

ences between readings from the library or other sources.

Exchange Value of Articles and Books

Scholars demonstrate the value of articles to their work

by the time they spend reading. Although the standard

deviation is high, scholars report they spend, on average,

over 42 minutes per article reading, with just a slight

difference between time spent per reading from library-

provided articles and others (Table 3). Extrapolating from

Personal

subscription/own

collection

From the

library/department

collection

Institutional/

subject repository

From another

person

From the Web Other way

Source of Different Publication Types (%)

Journal articles n=452 Books/chapters n=94

Conference proceedings/research reports n=91 Newspapers n=65

Other n=142

Figure 2: Source of different publication types.

Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections 157

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

the self-reported estimated average in Finland of 20 arti-

cle readings per month and an average of 42.29 minutes

per article reading, scholars spend on average 830

minutes or 14 hours per month reading scholarly articles.

This is a demonstration of exchange value. If library

readings constitute an estimated 49.1 % of the overall

readings and the average time per library article reading

is 43.19 minutes, scholars spend on average an estimated

1,056 minutes or 17.6 hours per month reading articles

that come from the library.

There is a significant difference between the number of

read articles during the last month between those who

obtained their last article from the library and from another

source (t-test −3,380, sig.,001). Those who obtained their

last journal article reading from the library read, on aver-

age, 24.46 articles in the last month, while those who

obtained their last article reading through other means

read only 15.39 articles.

Exchange value of books can be calculated in the

same way as articles, but not surprisingly, the mean

number of minutes reported for book readings is consid-

erably longer than that for articles and readers read from

many fewer books each month. On average, respondents

report five readings per month from books, with an over-

all mean time spent per reading of 81.26 minutes, result-

ing in an average total of 420 minutes or 7 hours spent

Table 1: Final reading format of journal articles and scholarly books/book chapters, % (n) (“In what format was the publication when you

read it?”).

Print Downloaded and

printed on paper

Previously downloaded/

saved and read on

computer screen

Online computer screen

(desktop or laptop)

On a mobile phone,

e-reader, or tablet

screen

Journal articles (n = ) . () . () . () . () . ()

Scholarly books (n = ) . () . () . () . () . ()

Table 2: Final reading format of article and book readings by the

source of the publication, % (n).

Printed



Electronic



Journal articles

(n = )

From the library . () . ()

Other source . () . ()

Scholarly books

(n = )

From the library . () . ()

Other source . () . ()

Print articles in print journals, downloaded and printed on paper,

previously downloaded/saved and read on computer screen, online

computer screen (desktop or laptop), on a mobile phone, e-reader, or

tablet screen.

Table 4: Time spent reading scholarly books/book chapters per month.

Time spent on reading during

last month (n = )

Number of readings/month (n = ) Hours spent on

reading/month

Mean Range SD Mean Range SD *

Scholarly books/

book chapters

From the library . – .. – ..

Other source . – .. – ..

Total . – .. – ..

*Number of average readings* average time spend on one book or chapter reading during the last month/60.

Table 3: Time spent reading journal articles per month.

Time spent on reading

(n = )

Number of readings/month n = ) Hours spent on

reading/month

Mean Range SD Mean Range SD *

Journal articles From the library . – .. – ..

Other source . – .. – ..

Total . – .. – ..

*Number of average readings* average time spent on reading/60.

158 Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

reading from books for work-related purposes (Table 4).

In the case of book readings, the time spent per reading

from other sources is significantly higher than the

reported time spent per library-provided book. With an

average of 43.6 % readings from books from the library

each month, times an average estimated time per reading

of 59.72 minutes, the exchange value of library book read-

ing is on average 135 minutes or 2.2 hours per month.

Readings from books that come from personal collec-

tions, colleagues, or a free advance copy are reported to

take much longer than readings from departmental

copies (which are included with library readings).

Caution should be made when interpreting these results,

as the standard deviation for book readings is quite high

and the number of respondents who answered this ques-

tion is relatively low.

Exchange value is somewhat problematic, because one

of the fundamental laws of library science is to “save the

time of the reader” (Ranganathan 1931). Libraries save the

reader time in finding and obtaining high quality articles,

presumably to allow more time for actually reading or

other high value endeavors. E-collections may also save

readers more time in that they do not need to visit the

physical library in order to use the library’s collections.

This is dramatically illustrated by the relatively small per-

cent of article readings that are done in the physical

library, even when obtained from the library collection

(Table 5).

Even though nearly half of book readings come from the

library collection, no readings are reported to occur in the

physical library. However, library book readings are sig-

nificantly more likely to be read in the office or laboratory

than from home.

Approximately a quarter of readings of

books from sources other than the library occur else-

where, often while traveling.

Use/Outcomes Value of Articles and Books

Scholars read articles for many different reasons and the

purpose of reading may influence the relative value of that

reading. Research, including writing articles, proposals,

and grant applications, is the most common reason for

reading articles, collectively accounting for over three-

quarters of readings in this study (68.1 %) (see Table 6).

Like article readings, book readings are most likely to be

for the purposes of research and writing (61.3 %, n = 57);

library-provided books more likely to be for these purposes

and less likely to be for personal pleasure. But scholarly

readings are also done for a wide variety of reasons,

including current awareness, teaching, making presenta-

tions, etc. Readings obtained from the library are most

likely to be for the purposes of research and writing.

Overall, library article readings average an importance-

to-purpose score of M = 3.6 on a five-point scale (where

1 = not at all important and 5 = absolutely essential), com-

pared to 3.3 for readings from other sources.

Article

readings for research and writing are deemed to be of

higher value to purpose (M = 3.7) and library readings

most often are for this purpose. Library journal collec-

tions, therefore, make an important contribution to high

importance readings supporting the research work of

their scholars. Like article readings, book readings are

Table 5: Where articles and books are read, % (n) (“Where were you

when you read this publication?”).

Office/lab Home Library Traveling/

commuting

All

elsewhere

Journal

articles

(n = )

From

the

library

. () . () . () . () . ()

Other

source

. () . () . () . () . ()

Scholarly

books/

book

chapters

(n = )

From

the

library

. () . ()  () 

() . ()

Other

source

. () . ()  () . () . ()

1 chi

0.010. 2 Difference is statistically significant t = −3.072, df = 449, sig. 0.002.

Table 6: Principal purpose for article and book/book chapter

readings.

Research

and writing

Teaching Current

awareness

Other

Journal

articles*

(n = )

From the

library

. () . () . () . ()

Other

source

. () . () . () . ()

Scholarly

books

(n =  )

From the

library

. () . () . () . ()

Other

source

. (

) . () . () . ()

*Difference is statistically significant chi

0.000.

Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections 159

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

rated similarly important overall to the purpose, but read-

ings from the library and from other sources are not

significantly different (library readings rated as a mean

of 3.6 on a five-point scale and readings from elsewhere

rated as 3.4.)

Since simple Lickert scale scores are insufficient in

understanding use or outcomes value, because they fail

to describe how the readings might be applied in work, we

asked respondents to select from a variety of possible

outcomes to describe “in what ways did the reading of

the article (or later, book) affect your work?” The most

frequently selected outcome for articles was “inspired new

ideas”. Articles, whatever their source, result in many

positive outcomes (see Table 7). There are some significant

differences between article readings from the library or

obtained through other sources. Article readings from else-

where are significantly more likely to “inspire new ideas”

(chi

0.033) and readings from the library are more likely

to help “me justify my work or make critical comments”

(chi

0.000). Article readings from the library are also

more likely to be cited now or in the future (chi

0.001).

Book readings have slightly different outcomes than

article readings, with “helped justify my work,”“improved

the results,” and “changed the focus” all selected more

often than “inspired new ideas.” The role of books in the

scholar’s work life is clearly somewhat different than the

role of articles. Books may be considered the cornerstones

where the development of a particular line of research is

presented in an in-depth manner, and compared to arti-

cles, books may be considered as providing a fuller over-

view of accumulated findings or current research on a

particular topic. As books are more often read for in-

depth argumentation and for providing philosophical

grounds for choosing a particular focus or theoretical

approach, book readings are also more often re-readings

than articles readings (one fourth of book readings were

re-readings). Books from the library are more likely to be

cited than books from other sources (26.8 % of library

books are cited compared to 17.3 % of books from other

sources (chi

0.025)).

Who is More Likely to Read from the Library?

(Demographic Differences)

Demographic questions provide insights into what type of

reader is more likely to read resources obtained from the

library. The following list shows where there are signifi-

cant differences in the amount of article or book reading

from the library versus other resources based on these

reader characteristics: age, rank/position, work responsi-

bilities, and type of research. Due to the much smaller

number of book readings, most of the significant differ-

ences are found within article readings:

– Scholars in the age group of 31–40 are significantly

more likely to obtain article readings from the library

(**chi

0.000). Probably due to the small number of

responses, the difference between age and where

they obtain books is not statistically significant,

although scholars over age 50 appear to read more

books from sources other than the library (69 % from

other sources).

– PhD-students read significantly more journal articles

from the library (two-thirds of their readings) (chi

0.001) when compared to professors (47.4 %), lecturers

(32.6 %), post-docs (55.6 %), and others (38.9 %).

– Scholars who spend more than half of their time on

research activities (designated here as “research inten-

sive”) obtain a significantly higher percent of (chi

0.021) their journal articles readings from the library

Table 7: Outcomes from reading articles and books, % (n).

Journal articles (n = ) Scholarly books (n = )

From the library Other source From the library Other source

Inspired new ideas * . () . () . () . ()

Helped to justify my work ** . () . () . () . ()

Improved the results . () . () . () . ()

Changed the focus . () . () .

() . ()

Saved time and other resources . () . () . () . ()

Resolved technical problems . () . () . () . ()

Resulted in faster completion . () . () . () . ()

Made me question my work . () . () . (

) . ()

Resulted in collaboration . () . () . () . ()

Wasted my time . () . () . () . ()

** chi

0.000, *chi

0.033.

160 Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

(52.4 %) when compared to “teaching intensive” scho-

lars (39.6 % of their article readings come from the

library).

– Scholars who say that they engage primarily in basic

research are significantly (chi

0.046) more likely to

obtain article readings from the library (54.5 %) than

scholars who engage primarily in applied research

(44.9 % of readings are from the library.)

Conclusions and Discussion

Although our article focuses on the differences between

identified library-provided reading and those obtained by

other means, we acknowledge that this analysis may

underestimate the important of library-connected readings.

That is, the library’s contribution is not limited to those

readings that respondents can absolutely identify as com-

ing from a library or departmental collection. For instance,

readings from institutional repositories (included here

with subject repositories) and “the web” are often as a

result of library efforts. Libraries expend much effort in

building and making discoverable repositories that include

articles and other materials authored by their communities

and patrons. Library link resolvers and authentication

protocols seamlessly link searches from web search

engines such as Google or Google Scholar to full texts of

articles held by a library subscription, so that to the

affiliated user it may appear that they were able to view

the text from the web without the library’sinvolvement.

By measuring outcomes and benefits of article and

book readings, we can provide a more nuanced view of

value and show how access to scholarly publications

help researchers, teachers, and doctoral students do

their work. When comparing library-provided readings

to those from other sources, this type of analysis also

demonstrates how provision of high-quality information

contributes to work and to the unique value contribution

of library collections.

The methods described here, including the critical

incident technique, can be used to measure the exchange

and use value of any library-provided collection or ser-

vice – not just article or book collections. Our main goal

was to examine scholars’ behavior after obtaining the

reading and how the interaction with the library’s collec-

tions or services impacted the scholars’ work. The results

are, of course, self-reported and represented the percep-

tions or views of the respondents. However, the exact

numbers are less important than the overall trends and

comparisons.

Scholarly article and book readings contribute to the

work of researchers in several ways. Readings obtained

from the library are most likely to be for the purpose of

research and writing. This trend is consistent with past

studies (Tenopir and King 2004; Tenopir et al. 2015).

Scholars agreed that, overall, readings inspired new

ideas and readings from the library were more likely to

help justify their work or make critical comments.

The study found several values, in terms of outcomes

or benefits to readers, of readings from the library collec-

tion. Library articles readings ranked higher on an impor-

tance of purpose scale with a mean of 3.6 compared to a

mean of 3.3 for reading from other sources. Books from

the library are more likely to be cited than books from

other sources. Article readings are considered to be of

higher value for research and writing purposes and scho-

lars who spend more time on research activities obtain

significantly more articles from the library, indicating

that library journal collections are important to scholars’

research work.

Furthermore, the contribution and value/benefits of

reading from the library collections differ from readings

obtained from other sources. Scholars who obtained their

last journal article reading from the library read more

articles in the last month than articles obtained from

other sources (24.26 versus 15.39).

Such human-centered measurement is, however,

labor intensive on the part of the assessment librarian

and the users. Therefore, these techniques are not some-

thing that a library would employ every year or even

every other year with the same population. As part of

an overall assessment strategy measuring outcomes and

benefits to users, these techniques provide a more com-

plete view of overall and lasting value of library

resources. Such an assessment strategy should include

periodic measures of outcomes from reading and benefits

to users, combined with ongoing implied value techni-

ques such as visits, class attendance, and downloads in

addition to the library’s contributions to the university’s

mission, and the benefits of access and services to users.

Although this study looks at researchers in just one

country, we believe results are more widely generalizable

as researchers in Finnish universities come from all over

the world and are widely fluent in multiple languages.

However, there are some unique characteristics of

Finnish access that need to be acknowledged. The nego-

tiation of e-journal site licenses for Finnish libraries is

undertaken by the nationwide FinELib consortium, equiva-

lent to a large regional consortium in larger countries;

therefore, in Finnish universities and research institutes

there is widespread access to e-journals from all major

Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections 161

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

scholarly publishers and a growing collection of e-books.

The decision was made at a national level over a decade

ago to focus journal purchasing on electronic resources;

more recently e-books were favored over print books.

Individual libraries, however, can and do make individual

purchases of print materials.

Finally, a cautionary note. The broader context of

access is changing and these changes need to be taken

into account in any study of reading behaviors and the

library contribution. In an age of increasing ways to access

published information, including gold open access obtained

through publishers’ websites, green open access through

repositories or authors’ web sites, or sharing through

research sharing platforms, libraries cannot base their

main value on collections anymore. Readers have a growing

number of sources to access and obtain the information

resources that they need. The library does not have a mono-

poly on scholarly information in our increasingly e-con-

nected world. Libraries must concentrate on measuring

other outlets of value. For example, by enabling the reading

of high-quality materials through portals, finding aids,

training, and unique collections, providing a variety of

research data management services, educating users about

open science policies, and offering direct services to help

scholars work more efficiently and effectively, we can pro-

vide a more complete picture of library value in the future.

Appendix A

Proposed Survey of Scholarly Reading (Finland)

Section 1: Demographics

1. Which of the following best describes your academic

discipline?

– Life sciences

– Physical sciences

– Medical sciences

– Computer science

– Mathematics

– Engineering

– Social sciences

– Business

– Psychology

– Education

– Humanities

– Fine Arts

– Law

– Other (please specify): ________________________

2. What is your specific discipline?

______________________________________________

3. I currently work at:

– University

– University of applied sciences

– State research institute

– Other research institute

– Other (please specify): ______________________

4. What is your academic status?

– Director/manager of an institute

– Professor

– Assistant Professor

– Project manager/program coordinator

– Postdoctoral researcher

– PhD candidate

– Research assistant

– Lecturer/university lecturer

– Teacher/university teacher

– Other (please specify): ______________________

5. What is your age?

______________________________________________

6. What percentage of your work time do you spend

doing the following? (The total should equal 100 %.

If the answer is zero, please enter “0” instead of

leaving a blank.)

% Teaching ___________________________________

% Research and Writing ________________________

% Specialist work (chargeable services/research

assignments) ___________ _____ ________ ________

% Administration and service (academic/societal)

______________________________________________

% Consulting/advising _________________________

% Other ______________________________________

7. The focus of my research is on:

– Basic/“academic” research

– Applied/practice-oriented research

– Development/constructive research work

– Other (please specify): ______________________

8. In the past two years, how many of the following

have you published? (If the answer is zero, please

enter “

0” instead of leaving a blank.)

National peer-reviewed scientific articles ________

______________________________________________

International peer-reviewed scientific articles _____

______________________________________________

National non-refereed scientific articles __________

______________________________________________

International non-refereed scientific articles _______

______________________________________________

Chapters in scholarly books ____________________

Scholarly books _______________________________

Conference proceedings ________________________

162 Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

Publications intended for the general public ____

______________________________________________

Publications intended for professional communities

______________________________________________

Public artistic and design activities ______________

Theses _______________________________________

Patents and innovation announcements _________

______________________________________________

Audiovisual material, ICT software _______________

_______________________________________________

Other _________________________________________

9. In the past two years, have you received any awards

or special recognition for your research or other

profession-related contributions?

– Yes

– No

Section 2: Reading Practices

10. How important do you consider reading the follow-

ing types of publications for your work?

Scale: Absolutely essential, Very important, Important,

Somewhat important, Not at all important, I don’t

know

– Scholarly journals

– Scholarly article compilations

– Scholarly books

– Conference proceedings

– Research reports

– Professional magazines/websites

– Newspapers/news sites

– Social media (e. g. blogs, Facebook, Twitter)

– Other Internet resources

– Textbooks/handbooks

– Popular science books

– Fiction

11. From which of the following scholarly fields do you

read literature for your work?

Scale: often, sometimes, never

– Life sciences

– Physical sciences

– Medical sciences

– Computer sciences

– Mathematics

– Engineering

– Social sciences

– Business

– Psychology

– Education

– Humanities

– Fine arts

– Law

– Other (please specify): ______________________

Section 3: Scholarly Article Reading (print and online)

12. In the past month (30 days), approximately how

many scholarly articles have you read? Articles

can include those found in journal issues, websites,

or separate copies such as preprints, reprints, and

other electronic or paper copies. Reading is defined

as going beyond the table of contents, title, and

abstract to the body of the article. If none, please

enter “0 ” instead of leaving a blank.)

Number of articles read (including skimmed) in

the past month:

____________________________ (If “0” skip to Q32)

The following questions in this section refer to

the SCHOLARLY ARTICLE YOU READ MOST

RECENTLY, even if you had previously read this arti-

cle. Note that while this last reading may not be

typical, it will help us establish the range of patterns

in reading behavior.

13. What year was the last article you read published/

posted?

______________________________________________

– Within the last year

– Within the last 2–5 years

– Within the last 6–10 years

– Within the last 11–15 years

– More than 15 years ago

14. In what language was the article written?

– Finnish

– English

– Swedish

– Other (please specify): ______________________

15. How thoroughly did you read this article?

– I read all of it with great care

– I read parts of it with great care

– I paid attention to the main points

– I read only specific sections (e. g. figures,

conclusions)

– I skimmed it just to get the idea

16. Had you previously read this article, i. e. is this a re-

reading?

– Yes

– No

17. How long (in minutes) did you spend reading this

last article at this reading?

In minutes: ____________________________________

18. How did you become aware of the last article you

read?

Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections 163

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

– Found while browsing in a publication or website

(without a specific objective in mind) (skip to Q19)

– Found while I (or someone on my behalf) was

searching (e. g. by subject or author’s name)

(skip to Q20)

– Cited in another publication (skip to Q21)

– Another person (e. g. a colleague) told me about

it (skip to Q21)

– Do not know/Do not remember (skip to Q21)

– Other (please specify): ____________________

______________________________ (skip to Q21)

19. Found while browsing: (after answering, skip to

Q21)

– Personal print subscription

– Personal online subscription

– Library print subscription

– Library online subscription

– School, department etc. print subscription

– School, department etc. online subscription

– Website

– Open access journals

– Research social networks (e. g. ResearchGate,

Academia.edu)

– Other (please specify): ______________________

20. Found while I (or someone on my behalf) was

searching:

– Web search engine (e. g. Google or Google Scholar)

– Electronic indexing/abstracting service (e. g.

Academic Search Premier, Web of Science)

– Print index or abstract

– Online journal collection (e. g. JSTOR)

– Online current awareness service (e. g. Current

Contents)

– Preprint/e-print service (e. g. arXiv.org)

– Open access journals

– Research social networks (e. g. ResearchGate,

Academia.edu)

– Other (please specify): _____________________

21. After you became aware of this article, from where

did you obtain it?

– Personal subscription

– Library subscription

– School, department etc. subscription

– Institutional or subject repository

– Free web or open access journal

– Preprint copy

– Copy of the article from a colleague, author etc.

– Interlibrary loan/document delivery service

– An author’s website

– Other website

– Research social networking sites (e. g.

ResearchGate, Academia.edu)

– Other (please specify): ______________________

22. This source was:

– Print

– Electronic

23. In what format was the article when you read it?

– Print article in a print journal

– Downloaded and printed on paper

– Previously downloaded/saved and read on com-

puter screen

– Online computer screen (desktop or laptop)

– On a mobile phone, e-reader, or tablet screen

– Other (please specify): ______________________

24. Where were you when you read this article?

– Office or lab

– Library

– Home

– Traveling or commuting

– Elsewhere (please specify): __________________

25. For what principal purpose was this article read?

(Choose only the most relevant answer)

– Research

– Teaching

– Administration

– Current awareness/keeping up

– Writing proposals, reports, articles etc.

– Writing funding/grant opportunities

– Consulting, advising others

– Internal or external presentations (e. g. lecture

or conference paper)

– Continuing education for self

– Check or verify facts

– Interest/pleasure/inspiration

– Other (please specify): ______________________

26. For what other purposes did you read this article?

(Choose all that apply)

– Research

– Teaching

– Administration

– Current awareness/keeping up

– Writing proposals, reports, articles etc.

– Writing funding/grant opportunities

– Consulting, advising others

– Internal or external presentations (e. g. lecture

or conference paper)

– Continuing education for self

– Check or verify facts

– Interest/pleasure/inspiration

– Other (please specify): _____________________

164 Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

27. How important is the article to your work?

– Not at all important

– Somewhat important

– Important

– Very important

– Absolutely essential

28. In what ways did the reading of the article affect

your work? (Choose all that apply)

– It improved the result

– It narrowed/broadened/changed the focus

– It inspired new thinking/ideas

– It resulted in collaboration/joint research

– It wasted my time

– It resulted in faster completion

– It resolved technical problems

– It made me question my work

– It helped to justify my work or make critical

comments

– It saved time or other resources

– Other (please specify): ______________________

29. Did you cite this article or do you plan to cite it in a

paper or report?

– No

– Maybe

– Already did

– Will in the future

30. Did you share the article or ideas raised by the

article in social media?

– Yes, I shared the article

– Yes, I shared the ideas raised by the article

– No

– No, but I will in the future

Section 4: Other Publication Reading (print and online)

31. In the past month (30 days) approximately how

many other publications (non-article readings)

did you read for work/research? Include books, con-

ference proceedings, government documents, tech-

nical reports, magazines, trade journals etc. A book

reading may include just reading a portion of the

book, such as skimming or reading a chapter (if

none, please enter “0” instead of leaving a blank.)

– Scholarly books ____________________________

– Scholarly book chapters _____________________

– Article in conference proceedings _____________

– Government documents or other technical or

research reports ____________________________

– Article in newspapers/news sites _____________

– Article in magazine/trade journals ____________

– Non-fiction ________________________________

– Fiction ____________________________________

– Blogs _____________________________________

– Other publications __________________________

The following questions in this section refer to

the PUBLICATION FROM WHICH YOU READ MOST

RECENTLY. Note that this last reading may not be

typical, but will help establish the range of patterns

in reading behavior.

32. What type of publication did you most recently

read?

– Scholarly book

– Scholarly book chapter

– Conference proceedings

– Government document or other technical or

research report

– Newspaper/news site

– Magazine/trade journal

– Non-fiction

– Fiction

– Blog

– Other (please specify): ______________________

33. About how much total time (in minutes) did

you spend reading this publication in the past month?

______________________________________________

34. What year was the last publication you read pub-

lished/posted?

______________________________________________

– Within the last year

– Within the last 2–5 years

– Within the last 6–10 years

– Within the last 11–15 years

– More than 15 years ago

35. How thoroughly did you read this publication?

– I read all of it with great care

– I read parts of it with great care

– I paid attention to the main points

– I read only specific sections (e. g. figures,

conclusions)

– I skimmed it just to get the idea

36. In what language was the publication written?

– Finnish

– English

– Swedish

– Other (please specify): ______________________

37. How did you become aware of this last publication

from which you read?

– Found while browsing (without a specific objec-

tive in mind)

– Found while I (or someone on my behalf) was

searching (e. g. by subject or author’s name)

Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections 165

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

– Cited in another publication

– Another person (e. g. a colleague) told me about it

– Promotional email or web advertisement

– Do not know/Do not remember

– Other (please specify): ______________________

38. After you became aware of this publication, from

where did you obtain it?

– I bought it for myself

– The library or archive collections

– Interlibrary loan or document delivery service

– School or department collection (e. g. not man-

aged by library)

– Institutional or subject repository

– A colleague, author, or other person provided it

to me

– A free, advanced, or purchased copy from the

publisher

– Author website

– Other (please specify): ______________________

39. In what format was the publication when you read it?

– Print (e. g. book, newspaper, etc.)

– Downloaded and printed on paper

– Online computer screen

– Previously downloaded/saved and read on com-

puter screen

– On a mobile, e-reader, or tablet screen

– Other (please specify): _____________________

40. Had you previously read this publication (i. e. is this

a re-reading)?

– Yes

– No

41. Where were you when you read this publication?

– Office or lab

– Library

– Home

– Traveling or commuting

– Elsewhere (please specify): __________________

42. For what principal purpose did you use, or do you

plan to use, the publication you read? (Choose only

the best answer)

– Research

– Teaching

– Administration

– Current awareness/keeping up

– Writing proposals, reports, articles, etc.

– Writing funding/grant opportunities

– Consulting, advising others

– Internal or external presentations (e. g. lecture

or conference paper)

– Continuing education for self

– Check or verify facts

– Interest/pleasure/inspiration

– Other (please specify): ______________________

43. For what other purposes did you read this publica-

tion? (Choose all that apply)

– Research

– Teaching

– Administration

–

Current awareness/keeping up

– Writing proposals, reports, articles etc.

– Writing funding/grant opportunities

– Consulting, advising others

– Internal or external presentations (e. g. lecture

or conference paper)

– Continuing education for self

– Check or verify facts

– Interest/pleasure/inspiration

– Other (please specify): ______________________

44. How important is the information contained in this

publication to your work?

– Not at all important

– Somewhat important

– Important

– Very important

– Absolutely essential

45. In what ways did the reading of the publication

affect your work? (Choose all that apply)

– It improved the result

– It narrowed/broadened/changed the focus

– It inspired new thinking/ideas

– It resulted in collaboration/joint research

– It wasted my time

– It resulted in faster completion

– It resolved technical problems

– It made me question my work

– It helped to justify my work or make critical

comments

– It saved time or other resources

– Other (please specify): ______________________

46. Did you cite this publication or do you plan to cite it

in another publication (e. g. article, report, book,

published proceeding)?

– No

– Maybe

– Already did

– Will in the future

47. Did you share the article or ideas raised by the

publication in social media?

– Yes, I shared the publication

– Yes, I shared the ideas raised by the publication

166 Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

– No

– No, but I will in the future

Section 5: Social Media

You’re almost finished!

48. How important do you consider each of these plat-

forms to your work (e. g. research, teaching, etc.)?

Scale: not at all important, somewhat important,

important, very important, absolutely essential

– Email lists or listservs

– Blogging (e. g. Wordpress, Blogster)

– Microblogging (e. g. Twitter, Tumblr)

– Institutional repository

– Cloud services (e. g. Dropbox, Google Drive)

– Reference management software (e. g. Mendeley,

Zotero)

– Research social networks (e. g. ResearchGate,

Academia.edu)

– General social networks (e. g. Facebook,

Goodreads)

– Collaborative authoring (e. g. Google Docs,

Sharepoint)

– User comments in articles

– Image sharing (e. g. Instagram, Flickr)

– Audio sharing (e. g. podcasts)

– Video sharing (e. g. YouTube, Vimeo)

49. How important do you consider each of these e-pub-

lication features to your work (e. g. research, teaching,

etc.)?

Scale: not at all important, somewhat important,

important, very important, absolutely essential

– Mobile phone compatible

– Tablet compatible

– Ability to share publication or content with

colleagues

– Enhanced navigation (ability to jump to foot-

notes, tables, and graphics and back to the

body of the text)

– Note-taking and highlighting capability

– Global language support (includes vertical writ-

ing and writing from right-to-right and vice versa)

– Video embeddedness component

– Audio embeddedness component

– Other (please specify): ______________________

50. What other features/characteristics would you like

to see in e-scholarly articles in the future?

_____________ ___ ______ _____ ___ ______ ___ _____ _

51. How has your reading and sharing of scholarly

materials changed in the last few years and how

do you expect it to change in the next year or two?

______________________________________________

You’ve reached the end of the survey. We appreciate

your participation. Thank you!

References

Aaltonen, M., P. Mannonen, S. Nieminen, and M. Nieminen. 2011.

“Usability and Compatibility of E-Book Readers in an Academic

Environment: A Collaborative Study.” IFLA Journal 37: 1.

doi:10.1177/0340035210396775.

Ahmad, P., and M. Brogan. 2012. “Scholarly Use of E-Books in A

Virtual Academic Environment: A Case Study.” Australian

Academic & Research Libraries 43(3): 189–213.

Ahmad, P., M. Brogan, and M. N. Johnstone. 2014. “The e-Book

Power User in Academic and Research Libraries: Deep Log

Analysis and User Customisation.” Australian Academic &

Research Libraries 45(1): 35–47.

Ashcroft, L. 2011. “Ebooks in Libraries: An Overview of the Current

Situation.” Library Management 32(6/7): 398–407.

Carroll, A. J., K. Corlett-Rivera, T. Hackman, and J. Zou. 2016. “E-Book

Perceptions and Use in STEM and non-STEM Disciplines: A

Comparative Follow-Up Study.” portal: Libraries and the

Academy 16(1): 131–62.

Chrzastowski, T. 2011. “Assessing the Value of Ebooks to Academic

Libraries and Users.” Preprint from the Proceedings of the 9th

Northumbria International Conference on Performance

Measurement in Libraries and Information Services. http://hdl.

handle.net/2142/28612.

Corlett-Rivera, K., and T. Hackman. 2014. “E-Book Use and

Attitudes in the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Education.”

portal: Libraries and the Academy 14: 2. doi:10.1353/

pla.2014.0008.

European University Institute (EUI). 2018. “Finland, Academic Career

Structure.” Accessed January 16, 2019. https://www.eui.eu/

ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/

AcademicCareersbyCountry/Finland

Machlup, F. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in

the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Machlup, F. 1979. “Uses, Value, and Benefits of Knowledge.”

Science Communication 1(1): 62–81.

Mikkonen, P., and I. Peltonen. 2016. “FinELibin E-Kirjakysely

Korkeakouluopiskelijoille Ja Opettajille [Finelib’sE-Book

Questionnaire for University Students and Teachers].” Accessed

May 15, 2017. http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/125376.

Oakleaf, M. 2010. The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive

Research Review and Report. Chicago: Association of College

and Research Libraries.

Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections 167

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM

Oakleaf, M. 2011. “What’s the Value of an Academic Library? the

Development of the Value of Academic Libraries

Comprehensive Research Review and Report.” Australian

Academic & Research Libraries 42(1): 1–13.

Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). 2018. “Number of Doctorate

Degrees Fell by 7 per Cent from the Previous Year.” Accessed

January 16, 2019. http://www.stat.fi/til/yop/2017/yop_2017_

2018-05-08_tie_001_en.html?ad=notify

Ranganathan, S. R. 1931. The Five Laws of Library Science. Madras

Library Association. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://babel.

hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b99721;view=1up;seq=13.

Shin, D. H. 2011. “Understanding E-Book Users: Uses and

Gratification Expectancy Model.” New Media & Society 13: 2.

doi:10.1177/1461444810372163.

Tenopir, C., L. Christian, and E. Late. “Survey of Scholarly Reading

(Finland).” University of Tennessee. Accessed August 2, 2017.

https://scholar.cci.utk.edu/sites/default/files/carol-tenopir/

files/finland.reading.survey.english.pdf.

Tenopir, C., and D. W. King. 2000. Towards Electronic Journals:

Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers. Washington,

D.C.: Special Libraries Association.

Tenopir, C., and D. W. King. 2004. Communication Patterns of

Engineers. New York: IEEE Press, Wiley Interscience.

Tenopir, C., D. W. King, L. Christian, and R. Volentine. 2015. “Scholarly

Article Seeking, Reading, and Use: A Continuing Evolution from

Print to Electronic.” Learned Publishing 28(2): 93–105.

Tenopir, C., D. W. King, S. Edwards, and L. Wu. 200 9. “Electronic

Journals and Changes i n Scholarly Article Seeking and

Reading Patterns.” Aslib P roceedings: New Info rmation

Perspectives 61(1): 5–32.

Tenopir, C., D. W. King, R. Mays, L. Wu, and A. Baer. 2010a.

“Measuring Value and Return on Investment of Academic

Libraries.” Serials 23(3): 182–90.

Tenopir, C., R. Mays, and L. Wu. 2011. “Journal Article Growth

and Reading Patterns.” New Review of Information Networking

16(1): 4–22.

Tenopir, C., R. Volentine, and D. W. King. 2012. “Scholarly Reading

and the Value of Academic Library Collections: Results of a

Study in Six UK Universities.” Insights, the Journal of the UKSG

(Formerly Serials) 25(2): 130–50.

Tenopir, C., C. S. Wilson, P. Vakkari, S. Talja, and D. W. King. 2010b.

“Cross Country Comparison of Scholarly e-Reading Patterns in

Australia, Finland, and the United States.” Australian Academic

& Research Libraries (AARL) 41(1): 26–41.

Walters, W. H. 2013. “E-Books in Academic Libraries: Challenges for

Sharing and Use.” Journal of Librarianship and Information

Science 46: 2. doi:10.1177/0961000612470279.

Wilson, C. S., and C. Tenopir. 2008. “Local Citation Analysis,

Publishing, and Reading Patterns: Using Multiple Methods to

Evaluate Faculty Use of an Academic Library’s Research

Collection.” Journal for the American Society for Information

Science & Technology 59(9): 1393–408.

168 Carol Tenopir et al.: Benefits and Outcomes of Library Collections

Brought to you by | University of Tennessee Knoxville

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/9/19 2:47 PM