SLA PAM Division 1998 Report and Survey Analysis
PAM Strategic Planning Committees1997/1998: Antoinette Beiser, Karen Croneis (chair), Gary Davidoff, Dorothy McGarry, Bob Michaelson.
1998/1999: Antoinette Beiser, Karen Croneis (chair), Michael Fosmire, Shaun Hardy, Dorothy McGarry, Bob Michaelson.
In June 1997, the PAM Executive Board charged the Strategic Planning Committee with developing a strategic plan for the Division and presenting it at the 1999 Annual Conference. To accomplish that goal, the 1997/98 Committee designed and conducted the Division's first comprehensive survey of members and friends of PAM.
This report presents the results of that survey and the 1998/99 Committee's analysis of those results. After supplying information about response rates and methods, the report is organized in five sections, mirroring the original survey. Results and related analyses appear together as much as possible. The report ends with some conclusions, which served as the basis for the Strategic Plan.
Responses
In February 1998, the PAM Strategic Planning Committee mailed surveys to 214 PAM members. Of that number, 142 returned a completed survey (66%); 9 declined to participate (4%); and 64 did not respond (30%). A response rate of 70% is impressive for a mail survey. More frequently, return rates are in the 20-50% range. The Committee interpreted the high return rate to indicate that PAM members have a very strong interest in and commitment to the Division. The survey also appeared on PAMNet, the Division's electronic discussion list. Friends of PAM returned a total of 12 surveys.
Part 1: You and Your Library
The survey data provide valuable insights into the characteristics of PAM's membership: who we are, where we work, and what we do.
PAM members from eight countries participated in the survey, with U.S. (91%) and Canadian (5%) respondents dominating. Thirty-one states were represented; not surprisingly, the largest population centers, California and New York, accounted for more than one-third of the U.S. total.
The respondents were divided roughly equally between those with 16 or more years of professional experience and those newer to library/information science; 13% were in the first five years of their professional careers. Holders of master's degrees in library/information science were, predictably, the norm, accounting for 84% of the respondents. Nearly half of the respondents (46%) also reported holding a college degree in science, mathematics, or engineering, with physics, math, and biology topping the list of undergraduate majors. Thirty-seven individuals -- one-fourth of the PAM members who responded -- hold advanced degrees, of which slightly more than half are in sci-tech disciplines.
Eighty percent of respondents were employed full-time at the time of the survey and 10% worked part-time; retirees and students accounted for most of the remainder. Academic libraries were the typical work environments, reported by 61% of the respondents. Government libraries were a distant second at 13%, followed by not-for-profit libraries at 11%. Only 5 respondents (4%) worked in the corporate sector. Eighty-five different job titles were reported in the survey (!), including 40 variations of "librarian." The most-frequently cited titles were simply "Librarian" or "Head of the ... Library".
The survey results confirm that PAM members wear many hats, both in terms of their subject specialties and job responsibilities. Over 62% have responsibilities for multi-subject areas. Physics was the most frequently cited specialty, reported by 54% of the respondents; astronomy was next, at 49%, followed by math (44%) and computer science (32%). More than 40% indicated specializations in other subject areas, as well. Chemistry, engineering, geology, and general science were most often mentioned.
No job duties were universal, but reference work and collection development were reported by the overwhelming majority of members (81% and 75%, respectively). Less-frequently mentioned functions included database management (32%), cataloging (25%), and instruction/BI (14%). Instruction was a write-in vote, so the actual number for that is probably much higher. More than half of the respondents indicated having administrative or supervisory duties.
Part 2: You and SLA
The survey also provided useful information about members' involvement in SLA and in PAM and their evaluations of annual conference programming.
In terms of the number of years in SLA, respondents were almost equally divided between those who were very new (1-5 years) to the organization (31%) and those have been members for 16+ years (29%). Membership is smaller for those in SLA 6-10 years (22%) and for those 11-15 year members (17%).
PAM members belong to 19 different divisions and 5 caucuses. Not surprisingly, 89% report than PAM is either their primary division (97) or "co-equal" with another division (24), with Sci-Tech and Chemistry being named most frequently. PAM does very well in comparison with other divisions. For example, of the 27 PAM members who are also members of Sci-Tech, 16 consider PAM their primary or co-equal division. Of the 14 PAM members who are also members of Chemistry, 10 consider PAM primary or co-equal.
Leadership/Involvement
A remarkably high percentage of survey respondents (49%) reported having a leadership role in the division, either currently or in the past. "Leadership" was generously defined to be almost anything someone does in the division: officer, roundtable facilitator, committee chair or member, Bulletin editor or assistant editor, PAMNet moderator, or PAM Web Site developer.
However, of those who have not had leadership roles, 24 members indicated that they were not involved because they were new, haven't been asked, or don't know what was involved. This situation represents professional and leadership development opportunities that would benefit both PAM and PAM members.
Further analysis of the data in the following table confirms some suppositions and points out clear differences. The Committee analyzed relationships between leadership and three different factors: conference attendance, work environment, and years in SLA.
| Leaders | Non-Leaders | % Leaders | ||
| Conference Goer | Reg | 40 | 16 | 71 % |
| Occ | 18 | 21 | 46 % | |
| Sel | 11 | 32 | 26 % | |
| Academic | Yes | 51 | 37 | 58 % |
| No | 20 | 35 | 36 % | |
| Years in SLA | 1-5 | 16 | 27 | 37 % |
| 6-10 | 12 | 21 | 36 % | |
| 11-15 | 15 | 9 | 62 % | |
| 16+ | 26 | 14 | 65 % | |
As the analysis reveals, regular conference goers are the most active in the Division, followed closely by longer-term members (11+ years), and academic librarians. Of the specialized populations studied, newer members and non-academic librarians are not getting involved at the same rate as their counterparts. In addition, those who don't or can't attend the annual conference are significantly less likely to serve in leadership positions.
Taken together, these facts suggest that it is easy to become involved in PAM division leadership, but that we aren't doing a good enough job in conveying that to newer members, members who work in non-academic settings, or perhaps to members who don't regularly come to SLA conferences.
When asked if they were interested in serving the PAM Division in some capacity, 31 people said they were already involved. Most exciting was the fact that 24 members responded positively, indicating the potential for new ideas and new energies. The names of those people were given to the PAM Executive Board.
In addition and within SLA, PAM members also serve in leadership roles in other divisions (26), in caucuses (3), in chapters (51), and at the Association level (7).
Conference Attendance
PAM often has a large percentage of members attending the Annual Conference in any given year. Eighty percent of PAM members responding to the survey had attended at least one SLA conference in the previous three years (1995, 1996, or 1997). The three most frequently mentioned reasons to attend the 1998 Annual Conference in Indianapolis were networking, official/committee duties, and keeping up/learning.
On the other hand, 45 respondents (32%) seldom (less than once in five years) or never attend conferences. According to those reporting, the chief barriers to attendance are funding issues (too expensive, travel distance, limited financial support from employer), personal responsibilities, and organizational restrictions on conference attendance. PAM should investigate alternative programming approaches that do not require attendance at the Annual Conferences.
Annual Conference
Respondents rated SLA Annual Conferences positively, with 86%evaluating programs as "great" (27%) or "pretty good" (59%). On the other hand, 14% gave programming a "so-so" rating and 1% said "poor". (These numbers do not add up to 100% due to rounding error.) A breakdown for specific programs is in the following table. Note: "# Rates" is the number of respondents who rated the given activity. For members' specific recommendations about conference programming, please see the detailed survey report.
| Activity | Great | Pretty Good | So-So | Poor | # Rates | Don't Know |
| Physics RT | 31% | 61% | 8% | 0% | 67 | 35 |
| Math RT | 35% | 53% | 10% | 2% | 58 | 45 |
| Astronomy RT | 24% | 63% | 14% | 0% | 51 | 42 |
| Comp Sci RT | 28% | 63% | 10% | 0% | 40 | 51 |
| Business Mtg. | 25% | 54% | 19% | 2% | 59 | 38 |
| Program Events | 13% | 76% | 11% | 0% | 74 | 22 |
| PAM-Wide RT | 28% | 61% | 11% | 0% | 72 | 27 |
| Vendor Update | 31% | 57% | 11% | 1% | 81 | 27 |
| Saturday Night | 30% | 51% | 19% | 0% | 37 | 50 |
| Open Houses | 27% | 48% | 24% | 1% | 83 | 23 |
The number of "don't know" responses appears fairly high. This could be due to difficulties in remembering specifics of the most recent conference attended. It is also likely that PAM members have a variety of interests and selectively attend PAM activities. To gauge the effectiveness of various programs more accurately and to improve them for the future, the Committee recommends having evaluation forms at each PAM session and encouraging participants to complete and return them.
Years as a Librarian
The Committee used a weighted scale to analyze further the data regarding satisfaction with conference program. A rating of "great" was given 4 points; "pretty good", 3; "so-so", 2; and "poor", 1. The following table summarizes that analysis. [Note: Information on standard deviations will be available June 3.]
| Conference Program | 1-5 years | 6-10 years | 11-15 years | 16+ years | Overall Score |
| Physics RT | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Math RT | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Astronomy RT | 2.7 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.1 |
| Comp Sci RT | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Business Mtg. | 2.7 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| Program Evnts. | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.0 |
| PAM-Wide RT | 2.8 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| Vendor Update | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Saturday | 2.7 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Open Houses | 2.7 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| Overall Score | 3.00 | 3.24 | 3.19 | 3.13 | 3.14 |
The overall score for the 10 conference programs was 3.14, better than "pretty good". Newer librarians' overall score was 3.0, "pretty good"---and significantly less than the scores of librarians in the profession 6-10 years (3.24), 11-15 years (3.19), and 16+ years (3.14). In particularly, newer librarians are significantly less satisfied with conference roundtables (physics, astronomy and PAM-Wide) and social events (Saturday get-togethers and open houses).
Academic/Non-Academic
PAM is dominated numerically by academic librarians, by a 2:1 ratio to those in all other types of libraries. However, there appears to be pronounced differences between these groups' levels of satisfaction with the Division's programs and services. A weighted analysis of responses (as explained previously) produced the following table. [Note: Information on standard deviations will be available June 3.]
| Conference Program | Academic | Non-Academic | Overall Score |
| Physics RT | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Math RT | 3.3 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Astro RT | 3.3 | 3.0 | 3.1 |
| Comp Sci RT | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Business Mtg. | 3.2 | 2.8 | 3.1 |
| Program Evts. | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.0 |
| PAM-WideRT | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.1 |
| Vendor Update | 3.3 | 2.9 | 3.2 |
| Saturday | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Open Houses | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.1 |
| Overall Score | 3.21 | 3.01 | 3.14 |
The mean scores of non-academic librarians were significantly lower than the mean scores of academic librarians for three activities: PAM Business Meeting, Program Events, and Vendor Update. Non-academics scored only one activity, Open Houses, higher than academics did.
Open Houses
Of those expressing an opinion, 63% preferred having two open houses during the Annual Conference. Most (43) respondents said they were flexible regarding nights open houses are held. Those with a preference recommended Sunday (40 replies), Monday (25) and Tuesday (20) most frequently. (Respondents could choose more than one night.)
When asked specifically about the expenditures related to having three open houses, the majority affirmed the desire for fewer open houses (2 instead of 3 per conference), with 12 people specifically suggesting that the money saved be used to assist members to attend the conference. (Since conference goers are generally more active, that would help the Division.) An almost equal number (11) would also like to see funds spent on improved conference programming including continuing and distance education.
Open Houses are the PAM Conference activity that generates least member enthusiasm with 21 respondents (25%) rating them "so-so" or "poor". As noted earlier, newer members are least satisfied with Open Houses. PAM would benefit considerably from focusing more attention on making new PAM members and SLA/non-PAM members feel welcome at the proposed reduced number of open houses.
Part 3: You and Other PAM Services
The survey provided good evaluative information on a variety of non-Conference services. The following chart summarizes the raw data.
| Service | Great | Pretty Good | So-So | Poor | # Replies |
| PAMNet | 67% | 30% | 3% | 0% | 138 |
| PAM Web Site | 21% | 65% | 13% | 1% | 106 |
| Bulletin-Print | 34% | 55% | 12% | 0% | 124 |
| Bulletin-Online | 42% | 48% | 10% | 1% | 84 |
PAMNet
PAMNet, the Division's electronic discussion list, is far and away the best service PAM provides. With 67% rating it "great" and another 30% "pretty good", PAMNet facilitates information sharing and serves as a heavily used information and advice resource for librarians around the world. As with any good resource, it can be even more effective. In the case of a decentralized tool like PAMNet, suggestions underscore the fact that much of the improvement will have to be made by the individuals who use it.
Web Site
Well before the survey, members agreed that the PAM web site was in need of an overhaul. On the survey, members made recommendations about design, content, and development. In the past year, the Networking Committee has done a good job of incorporating those suggestions and making the web site more relevant. As members gain more experience with developing and refining their own web pages, expectations of the PAM web site will likely grow. Librarians with 11-15 years of experience were least satisfied with the web site (2.7 average score), while those with 6-10 years of experience were most satisfied (3.3).
PAM Bulletin
The Division publishes two editions of its quarterly newsletter, the PAM Bulletin. Both editions contain the same content. The electronic version is announced via PAMNet and is available prior to the publication of the print version. The print version of the PAM Bulletin began publication more than 25 years ago and has served members well over the years. Survey respondents pointed out difficulties with font, layout, and typeface, all of which have been improved in the past year. Non-academic librarians are significantly less satisfied than their colleagues working in academic institutions with the print PAM Bulletin.
Like other publishers, PAM will also have to grapple with the role of any kind of "journal", print or electronic, in an increasingly digital world. Specifically, one issue is duplication with PAMNet.
For the time being, though, the survey asked only about preferences between print and electronic, given costs of publication. The majority (74%) urged the Division to retain both the print and electronic versions of the PAM Bulletin until everyone has electronic access. A significant number (25%) said that publishing only an electronic edition was preferable or acceptable; 2% wanted to see the Division publish a print-only version. Many members suggested the print be offered "on demand" to those who requested it, instead of automatically sending print subscriptions to all members.
Part 4: Current PAM Practices
The Division has been wrestling with two issues in particular: expenditures for open houses; and the publication options for the Division's newsletter, the PAM Bulletin. Those results have been included in earlier sections in this report.
The survey revealed that 52% of respondents (71) knew about the Division's two awards, the PAM Award and the PAM Achievement Award. However, only 41 were also familiar with the application procedures.
Part 5: You, PAM and the Future
The two biggest challenges facing PAM members as librarians and information professionals are in simply "keeping up" (60 mentions) and dealing with budgets, particularly journal costs (49). Balancing time pressures (and the need to set priorities for ourselves) (30) with user-related issues (30) is an ongoing juggling act. Staying on top of the electronic environment with all the options and choices that seem to change daily (28) is also a challenge.
Other issues mentioned included such things as dealing with hierarchy and management expectations (13), keeping skills current/professional development (13), change and changing roles (12), and management/supervisory issues and concerns (7).
The most frequently mentioned thing that respondents said that the PAM Division could do to help meet those challenges was to have dynamic programming at the annual conference (35). Communication was the theme of the next three suggestions: communicate information about resources and services (23), communications with vendors and publishers (23), and continue PAMNet (22). Also identified as useful were continuing education (13), networking/information sharing (13), continue PAM web site (7), collaborate/work with others (6), and mentoring (5).
In analyzing the results of these two related questions, the Committee did not find any special needs for particular populations.
In order to understand better the desires and needs of PAM members regarding the future directions for the Division, the final question on the survey asked respondents to rank 10 possible strategies. In the following table, items are ranked according to the raw number of times each was marked.
| Rank | Priority | Replies |
| 1 | Increase communications and networking among members. | 109 |
| 2 | Plan focused dynamic programming at the Annual Conference. | 102 |
| 3 | Strengthen liaison relationships with vendors, publishers, etc. | 100 |
| 4 | Sponsor continuing education courses. | 80 |
| 5 | Provide mentoring in the subject areas of the Division. | 78 |
| 6 | Represent members at Association Cabinet and other SLA meetings. | 46 |
| 7 | Recruit new members to the Division. | 40 |
| 8 | Encourage library/information science students to work in physics-astronomy-mathematics organizations. | 36 |
| 9 | Increase participation of international members. | 36 |
| 10 | Provide leadership training for members. | 34 |
Although members give high marks to PAMNet and respond positively to the PAM Bulletin, the greatest number (109) ranked "Increase communication and networking among members" among their top choices. This fact leads one to wonder whether personal communication might be lacking, given that networking is a more intrinsically personal activity. Both the electronic discussion list and the newsletter are impersonal communications. On the other hand, even though PAMNet and the Bulletin are highly rated, perhaps there is simply an ongoing need for more information and a continuing desire for more interactions with others who understand the particulars of our work and the challenges we face.
CONCLUSIONS
Members look to PAM primarily as a vehicle for communication and education. Specifically, they expect that PAM will facilitate information sharing and promote networking (among members and with publishers), provide relevant programming (including Annual Conferences and continuing education), and mentor newer members.
PAM members are generally satisfied with the Division's services and conference programs. Of the 14 categories evaluated, all received an average overall rating of at least "pretty good". The fact that one service, PAMNet, received a "great" rating indicates that members are willing to rate activities at that level-and that there is room for improvement in all areas.
The survey revealed that different groups have different levels of satisfaction with PAM programs and services. Newer members, those working in settings other than academia, and members who do not regularly attend Annual Conferences are, in general, less satisfied than other members. PAM needs to focus its efforts on involving all members of the Division.
To keep up, members want more educational opportunities both at the Annual Conference and between conferences. The expressed needs range from technical training to professional development. To deal with the challenges of limited budgets and increasing journal costs, members want PAM to continue its liaison work with vendors and publishers.
As a result of the survey data and analysis, the Committee recommends that the PAM Division's strategic plan for 1999-2002 should focus on four areas:
- increasing communication and networking among members,
- improving Annual Conference programming,
- expanding mentoring and professional development activities for all PAM members, and
- strengthening liaison relationships with publishers and vendors.
PAM has many strengths, the most important and valuable being the dedication, enthusiasm and support of its members and friends. To provide the best services possible, PAM must continue to explore and find new approaches to communication, networking, conference programming, and education for all its members.
Respectfully submitted,
1998/99 PAM Strategic Planning Committee:
Antoinette Beiser
Karen Croneis, chair
Michael Fosmire
Shaun Hardy
Dorothy McGarry
Bob Michaelson
Page last updated: May 27, 1999