LibQUAL+™ spring 2001 comments: a qualitative analysis using Atlas.ti

Abstract

Respondents’ comments to the LibQUAL+™ spring 2001 survey were examined to refine the instrument and reduce non‐sampling error. Using qualitative data analysis software, Atlas.ti, respondents’ unsolicited e‐mail messages were analyzed. Results showed that the major problem with the survey was its length, which was due to a combination of factors. This information helped the survey designers in reducing the number of library service quality items from 56 to 25 and in addressing technical problems from the Web‐based survey. An in‐depth discussion of the steps followed in conducting the Atlas.ti analysis will also be discussed.

Coding Practices for LibQUAL+® Open-Ended Comments

“…A search of the published, peer-reviewed library literature found 12 articles and conference papers produced by 11 academic libraries: Bowling Green State University (Haricombe & Boettcher, 2004); Northeastern University (Habich, 2009); Notre Dame (Jones & Kayongo, 2009); Texas A&M (Guidry, 2002;Clark, 2007); University of Arizona (Begay, Lee, Martin, & Ray, 2004); University of British Columbia (Friesen, 2009); University of Idaho (Jankowska, Hertel, & Young, 2006); University of Massachusetts-Amherst (Fretwell, 2009); University of Pittsburgh (Knapp, 2004); Vanderbilt University (Wilson, 2004); Western Michigan University (Dennis & Bower, 2008). These articles covered LibQUAL+® surveys administered during the period from 2001 to 2007 and for the most part described the methodologies, experiences, and findings of individual libraries that performed some type of systematic analysis of their survey's comments.…”

“…Seven of these 11 libraries were members of ARL (Begay et al, 2004;Guidry, 2002;Clark, 2007;Jones & Kayongo, 2009;Fretwell, 2009;Friesen, 2009;Knapp, 2004;Wilson, 2004). Ten of the 11 institutions are located in the United States: 3 in the Northeast, 3 in the South, 2 in the Midwest, and 2 in the West, while the eleventh institution is located in Canada.…”

“…Three of the libraries reported the number of coders they used: one reported using one coder (Habich, 2009), and two reported using two coders (Dennis & Bower, 2008;Jones & Kayongo, 2009). Two non-librarians were involved in the coding (Dennis & Bower, 2008;Guidry, 2002). Only one of the libraries reported providing formal training for their coders by way of a consultant (Begay et al, 2004) while another library's coder was self-taught (Habich, 2009).…”

Application of Grounded Theory in Career Research Reviewed

“…Use pre-defined analytical techniques, including pre-defined codes (Atherton & Elsmore, 2007) • Depending on the program used, codes can either be pre-determined or developed as the data are analysed (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) • QDA programs are ''neutral in intent and output'' (Atherton & Elsmore, 2007, p. 69) as meaning and interpretation are provided by the researcher through the provision of codes. ''Creation of too many codes and consequent loss of understanding of the overall picture'' (Rettie, Robinson, Radke, & Ye, 2008) • An overview of the overall picture can be easily obtained as software programs provide mechanisms to link information and find patterns (Guidry, 2002) Source: Authors' Compilation Table 2 indicates that when a software program is used, the analysis part (including but not limited to coding, judging, opinions, ideas and interpretation) can only be done by the researcher (Pandit, 1996). For this study, the QDA program mainly assisted with data management in the form of storage, ordering and easy retrieval (Atherton & Elsmore, 2007;Rettie, Robinson, Radke, & Ye, 2008).…”

“…• Although the program allows searches within the data to identify patterns, interpretation of the data can only be done by the researcher as the researcher still needs to specify what patterns to look for (Guidry, 2002).…”