Abstract:
Research problem
Subject guides are disciplinary resource discovery maps long created by librarians to assist library users in independently locating resources within the library. While best practices in the design and promotion of guides are well documented in the literature, analyses of usage are scant. Furthermore, given developments in resource discovery, including Web-scale discovery tools and Google Scholar, subject guide usage needs to be contextualised in relation to the usage of other discovery tools.
Methodology
Access data for the access of subject guides and resource discovery tools located on the University of Canterbury (UC) Library Website was collected for the last five weeks of the first term of the academic year. Subject guide access data was gathered using Google Analytics and resource discovery tool access data was gathered from EZproxy server logs. Access statistics for subject guides (hosted on LibGuides) were analysed to investigate disciplinary differences in subject guide access. To investigate disciplinary differences in resource access behaviour, EZproxy server logs were parsed and analysed to quantify resource access originating from the four main resource discovery tools offered by UC Library: subject guides (as hosted on LibGuides), Web-scale discovery (Summon), databases (via Biblioplus) and Google Scholar.
Results
Four disciplinary groups of subject guides were responsible for 82% of all subject guide page views, with the remaining 18 disciplinary groups of guides having relatively low access. When raw access figures were normalised according to student enrolments, subject guides for the Law & Legal Studies, Studies in Human Society, and History & Archaeology disciplines attracted disproportionately high access, while subject guides in Economics, Engineering, and Mathematical Sciences attracted disproportionately low access. Analysing the resource discovery tools used to access sample databases for these disciplines revealed different disciplinary approaches to resource discovery. Disciplines that had high access rates for subject guides were more likely to commence information resource searches in subject guides or a specific database. Disciplines that had low access rates for subject guides were more likely to commence information resource searches in Summon or Google Scholar.
Implications
The differences in subject guide usage and resource discovery approaches suggests different disciplinary needs for information resource discovery. Given the low usage for most guides found in this study and the dominance of Summon, in particular, as a resource discovery tool, the creation of subject guides for all disciplines may no longer be an effective method for supporting patrons in resource discovery.
