Hi Jacqui,

I can confirm that the Birmingham results are included in the SCONUL consortium notebook.

Best,
David

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Jacqui Dowd <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Martha, Selina,

Looking for the Birmingham results this morning on the LibQUAL web pages it appears that it is not yet available.

 

Can you please confirm that their results are included in the SCONUL consortium results?

 

Thanks,

Jacqui

 

Jacqueline F. Dowd
Management Information Officer
University of Glasgow Library
Hillhead Street
Hillhead
Glasgow
G12 8QE

The University of Glasgow is a registered charity in Scotland, charity number SC004401


On 11 Jan 2012, at 15:22, "Killick, Selena" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi all,

 

From the SCONUL Notebook 2011 I can see that overall the responses were split roughly 50/50 between Lite & Long, but I cannot see how this drills down at an institutional level (it could be that everyone adopted a 50/50 split, or half of the libraries used Long where as the other half used Lite). It’ll be interesting to hear what everyone decided to do.

 

At Cranfield we adopted a 50/50 split between Lite and Long in 2010 on a trial basis, following a successful trial we went 100% Lite in 2011.

 

And in case you haven’t spotted it, the SCONUL consortium notebook 2011 is now available within the Data Repository.

 

 

Cheers,

Selena

Selena Killick
Library Quality Officer
Barrington Library
Cranfield Defence and Security
Cranfield University
Defence Academy of the United Kingdom
Shrivenham
WILTS SN6 8LA
Tel: +44 (0)1793 785561
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://diglib.shrivenham.cranfield.ac.uk/

 
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee, please accept our apology, notify the sender immediately and then delete the email. We request that you do not disclose, use, copy or distribute any information within it.

Any opinions expressed are not necessarily the corporate view of Cranfield University. This email is not intended to be contractually binding unless specifically stated and the sender is an authorised University signatory.

Whilst we have taken steps to ensure that this email and all attachments are free from any virus, we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.

From: The UK LibQUAL+ Interest Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lisa Donnelly
Sent: 10 January 2012 15:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: LibQual Lite query

 

Dear all,

 

We have also used the traditional LIBQUAL+ survey on a biennial basis but would be interested in hearing views on the LibQual Lite version.

 

Thanks,

 

Lisa

 

 

From: The UK LibQUAL+ Interest Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michelle.Breen
Sent: 10 January 2012 13:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: LibQual Lite query

 

Dear colleagues,

 

We’re planning to administer the LibQUAL+ survey this spring. 

 

In the past we’ve used the traditional LibQUAL+ questions but this time we are considering LibQual Lite.

 

I would like to hear from those of you that have done LibQual Lite and those among you who considered it but decided not to go with it, and perhaps the reasons why you chose not to go with it.

 

Your input would be very helpful.

 

Michelle.

 

 

Michelle Breen

Librarian, Administration

-----------------------------------

Room GL1-019
Glucksman Library,
University of Limerick

061-233625
www.ul.ie/library

 

 

 

 

 




--
David Green
Library Relations Coordinator, MLS
Statistics & Assessment | Association of Research Libraries
GoogleTalk: [log in to unmask] | Skype: david.green.arl