Student Feedback on Federated Search Use, Satisfaction, and Web Presence: Qualitative Findings of Focus Groups

Future research could expand use and satisfaction information by including faculty members in studies. It would be interesting to study how librarian attitudes toward federated search tools affect their placement on library websites and how instruction in use of federated search tools affect use and satisfaction with them. Furthermore, it would be helpful to learn how users who report using federated search in tandem with other research tools do so. That information could provide additional insights into how best to design federated search interfaces and incorporate federated search tools into library websites.

Acknowledgments

We would like to recognize all current and former members of Milner’s federated search committee: Morag Boyd, Erik Estep, Jennifer Hootman, Chad Kahl, and Andy Taylor, with special thanks to Andy for initially developing Milner’s customized federated search interface.

Sarah C. Williams is Interim Systems Coordinator and Assistant Professor, Angela Bonnell is Government Documents Librarian and Associate Professor, and Bruce Stoffel is Reference Services Coordinator and Associate Professor, Milner Library, Illinois State University, Normal.

Submitted for review August 26, 2008; revised and accepted for publication December 12, 2008.

Reference & User Services Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 131–139
© 2009 American Library Association. All rights reserved. Permission granted to reproduce for nonprofit, educational use.

References and Notes

1. In searching predominant federated search vendor websites (i.e., AGent Search, Explorit Research Accelerator, MetaLib, MuseGlobal, PowerSearch Plus, Research Pro, Searcher Analyzer, Web-Feat, 360 Search) only WebFeat provides an approximate number of libraries using their product. According to WebFeat’s website, “WebFeat systems are now used by over 16,500 leading public, academic, government and Global 1000 libraries and information centers—including over a third of the largest 100 U.S. public libraries, 17 statewide library systems, and 2 out of every 10 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institutions.” WebFeat, WebFeat: A Brief History (accessed Nov. 24, 2008).
2. Milner Library belongs to a consortium of Illinois libraries sharing an online union catalog and offering collaborative partnerships for information products. Membership includes the libraries of each state-supported university, private colleges and universities, community colleges, the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, the Newberry Library, and
   the Illinois State Library. At the time of the decision the consortium was known as Illinois Library Consortium State Organization (ILCSO). In 2005, it was renamed Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (CARLI). WebFeat, ILCSO Selects WebFeat to Provide Federated Search Solution (accessed Nov. 24, 2008).
3. For a list of the Usability Testing Scenario Questions and Usability Testing Debriefing Questions, please see Federated Searching Feedback, www.library.ilstu.edu/page/1199.
4. Roy Tennant, “Cross-Database Search: One Stop Shopping,” Library Journal 126, no. 17 (Oct. 15, 2001): 29–30.
5. Roy Tennant, “The Right Solution: Federated Search Tools,” Library Journal 128, no. 11 (June 15, 2003): 28, 30.
6. Bennett Claire Ponsford and Wyoma vanDuinkerken, “User Expectations in the Time of Google: Usability Testing of Federated Searching,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 12, no.1/2 (2007): 159–78.
7. Laura Wrubel and Kari Schmidt, “Usability Testing of a Metasearch Interface: A Case Study,” College & Research Libraries 68, no. 4 (July 2007): 292–311.
8. Carole A. George, “Lessons Learned: Usability Testing a Federated Search Product,” The Electronic Library 26, no. 1 (2008): 5–20.
9. C. Jeffrey Belliston, Jared L. Howland, and Brian C. Roberts, “Undergraduate Use of Federated Searching: A Survey of Preferences and Perceptions of Value-Added Functionality,” College & Research Libraries 68, no. 6 (Nov. 2007): 472–86.
10. Rong Tang, Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, and Shanyun Zhang, “User Perceptions of MetaLib Combined Search: An Investigation of How Users Make Sense of Federated Searching,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 12, no. 1/2 (2007): 211–36.
11. Lynn D. Lampert and Katherine S. Dabbour, “Librarian Perspectives on Teaching Metasearch and Federated Search Technologies,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 12, no. 3/4 (2007): 253–78.
12. Michael Boock, Jane Nichols, and Laurel Kristick, “Continuing the Quest for the Quick Search Holy Grail: Oregon State University Libraries’ Federated Search Implementation,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 11, no. 4 (2006): 145.
13. Sarah Robbins and Cheryl McCain, “Federated Searching: Instruction and Promotion on ARL Libraries’ Web Sites,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 12, no. 3/4 (2007): 279–96.
14. Richard A. Krueger and Mary Anne Casey, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2000).
15. Marilyn Von Seggern and Nancy J. Young, “The Focus Group Method in Libraries: Issues Relating to Process and Data Analysis,” Reference Services Review 31, no. 3 (2003): 272–84.
16. Krueger and Casey, Focus Groups, 26.
17. William Baer, “Federated Searching: Friend or Foe,” College & Research Libraries News 65, no. 9 (Oct. 2004): 518–19.
18. Tang, Hsieh-Yee, and Zhang, “User Perceptions of MetaLib Combined Search,” 221.
19. Book, Nichols, and Kristick, “Continuing the Quest for the Quick Search Holy Grail,” 145.
20. Gail Herrera, “MetaSearching and Beyond: Implementation Experiences and Advice from an Academic Library,” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 2 (June 2007): 47.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7