College and Research Libraries RALPH W. LEWIS User's Reaction to Microfiche A Preliminary Study Recent emphasis placed on the use of microfiche by large govern1nent agencies has increased the pressure on libraries supporting govern- ment research to make greater use of microfiche. Negative and apathetic user attitudes~ expressed by researchers~ indicate that ex- panded use of microfiche will have to be accompanied by concen- trated efforts to overcome resistance if the great potential of micro- fiche is to be realized. Efforts in microphotography~ expended on technical achievement in the past~ should be directed toward under- standing the user and his needs to discover why he avoids n~icroforms and how to overcome his resistance to them. THE POTENTIAL VALUE offered by pho- tographic technology in the publication, storage, and dissemination of recorded knowledge and information has been recognized for well over a century. The use of microphotography to com- press the bulk of printed material, demonstrated as early as 1853 by Res- ling's experiment with microcopies of a newspaper, has made a great impact on information handling activities. 1 It has made great contributions to the ad- vancement of scientific and humanistic studies by making rare, out-of-print, and other difficult to obtain materials avail- able.2 It has preserved printed materials during war and has offered countless libraries a way to improve their collec- tions.3 Microfilm, microcards, microprint, and now microfiche offer potential econ- omies in space, in acquisition and bind- At the time this study was conducted, Mr. Lewis was Director of the Library in the Boulder (Colo.) Research Laboratories of the Envimnmental Science Services Ad- ministration. 260 I ing costs, costs in distribution of copies of materials, and library circulation costs. There are benefits, both realized and potential, in the extension of interlibrary loan services, in opportunities for indi- viduals to obtain personal libraries of their own at little expense, and in more effective teletransmission of photofac- similes. 4 Still, the impact on library operations and exchange of information often prophesied for microphotography has not been realized. 5 Explanations are many for the failure of this potential to materialize, including deficiencies in the quality of the microfilmed image, diffi- culties in indexing information stored on microforms, problems with biblio- graphic description of materials and many other aspects of microphotogra- phy. It becomes downright dishearten- ing in reviewing the literature to find that the basic problems foreseen in the earliest trials are still the basic problems cited in our day. 6 Perhaps the most basic of the prob- lems is the reluctance of users to ac- cept microcopies. This reluctance is caused mostly by inconvenience and deficiencies in the quality of equipment available for reading photoreduced ma- terials. While many of the technical ad- vantages originally anticipated have been realized, the whole of these efforts have failed to realize the total potential partly because the user has not been given sufficient consideration.7 Micro- fiche, despite its real and supposed ad- vantages, might suffer the same fate un- less user resistance is dealt with more effectively. Advantages and disadvantages not- withstanding, the hard fact remains that libraries and other organizations in- volved in the exchange of information must expect to acquire and provide more and more information in micro- forms of all varieties. PuRPOSE OF THE STUDY Changes in the distribution of gov- ernment technical information will make the use of microfiche increasingly wide- spread, especially for libraries that sup- port government research. Emphasis placed on microfiche by the four large governmental dispensers of technical in- formation, as a primary medium in their technical distribution programs, began with the DDC change of policy in July 1968.8 Many of the technical reports in hard copy format previously available through D DC and NASA at no cost are now distributed through the Clearing- house for Federal Scientific and Tech- nical Information at $3.00 per copy. Mi- crofiche copies, however, have continued to be available at no cost. The Boulder Laboratories library has depended heav- ily on technical report materials for many years from both DDC and NASA, and in both formats. Policy changes by DDC and NASA impelled the Boulder Laboratories li- brary to make still another significant change in policy : it could no longer pay, because of budget restraints, for t ech- nical r eports that its laboratories re- quested. With the new charges, labora- User's Reaction to Microfiche I 261 tories were required to buy with their own funds all those reports that were to become the property of their divi- sions or sections. For three reasons, this change pre- cipitated the study on microfiche user attitudes reported here. First, it intend- ed to increase users' awareness of micro- fiche, since they would come more and more in contact with it. Second, it intended to stimulate in- terest in microfiche, partly because of the announced changes, but also be- cause the library had accumulated a little-used collection of more than 70 000 technical reports in microfiche form. ' Third, it was expected that the change in library policy would have the initial effect of stimulating interest in microfiche on the part of the laboratory people in order to conserve funds for research activities. Knowledge of how microforms had been received in other libraries in the past and reactions by our own library users led to the belief that original enthusiasm would soon wane unless something was done to ov- ercome negative response from labora- tory people. The intent was to poll users to obtain a better idea of how they would accept the change. The library sent out short question- naires attached to memos explaining the new policies. The responses provided excellent information which appears to be worth reporting to a wider audience, since an extensive review of the litera- ture produced no direct reports of user reaction to microtext (if one excludes the reports ·of librarians who report re- actions of their own and their library patrons). Although the study concerns users of only one specific library, r e- sponses come directly from scientific and technical people working in the laboratories and, by-and-large, confirm and help explain reluctance to use mi- croforms. However, there is a surprising acquiescence on the part of those r e- sponding, suggesting that some atten- 262 I College & Research Libraries • July 1970 tion to their needs could overcome a considerable amount of their resistance. There was no attempt to get a highly controlled statistical sampling. Rather, forms were sent to all people who might be concerned and everyone was pro- vided with an opportunity to respond. No follow-up was made on unreturned questionnaires; therefore, some valid limitations may exist on the extent to which results can be applied outside this institution. Nevertheless, when re- sults obtained in this study are consid- ered in a broader context, that is, with other reports in the literature of sim- ilar nature, and with library experience, they appear to be valid. They may in- deed be indicative of the general re- sponse to microforms. The objective was well served, in any case, because the poll drew from those responding an indication of collective interest, as it existed, and some idea of the problems to be overcome. Of even more value were some individual com- ments received reflecting subjective feelings that were not evident in the checked responses on the question- naires. Statistical analyses are of little practical value when the library is con- fronted by a single user. If he likes mi- crofiche he must be served; if he does not, he must still be served. Two versions of the questionnaire were distributed. The first version was sent to forty people who normally re- ceived the NASA STAR (Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports) from which they selected t echnical reports for review. Fourteen of those, or 35 per- cent, were returned. The questionnaire was later expand- ed by one question and sent to a much wider audience of 681 laboratory people at the Boulder Laboratories and ESSA (Environmental Science Services Ad- ministration) Research Laboratories in Boulder, the rest of the United States, and in Peru. Of these fifty, two (or 7.5 percent) were returned. Responses ( 9.1 percent of all sent out) cmne from all of the National Bureau of Standards di- visions in the Boulder Laboratories and thirteen of the seventeen ESSA Re- search Laboratories, giving a broad if not a perfect sample. The results from each version of the questionnaire are differentiated in Ta- bles 1, 2, and 3 because they originated from two different groups. The first group consisted of people whose pat- tern of use was somewhat known (moderate to heavy users of technical reports). The second group consisted of all "professional" laboratory employ- ees, whose use of the library was less well known. After the results of the first survey were received, a fourth question was added, because most of those respond- ing thought that microfiche would be fine for the library collection as long as they could be converted to full-size , hard copy before they were us ed. Since such service could not be provided and because this approach to microfiche use would cost more than the purchase of the item in hard copy to b egin with, the library asked how the limitation on copying would affect the aeneral re- sponse to the first question. Questions were structured to provide a kind of opinion scale, " ·ith the first one or two possible respon ses giving positive opinions, the third possible re- sponse giving a noncommittal accept- ance (perhaps a lack of opinion ) and the last two indicating n egative opin- ions. They were also structured to nar- row the user's perspective from a broad idea of the value of microfi che to the library's use of microfiche and finally to his own p ersonal feelings a bout his use of the medium. Table 1 illustrates the range of opin- ions given by respondents concerning the suitability of microfiche as a medi- um for the dissemination of t echnical information. Their response s set the tone for the r est of the stu dy by an overwhelming lack of enthusiasm. Posi- tive opinions were outnumbered by al- most two to one. Furthermore, many of those who considered microfiche to be acceptable added significant comments that modified their acceptance. For ex- ample, many indicated that microfiche would be acceptable for materials that were to be scanned for relevance, but that materials needed for study or use in research were needed in hard copy if they were needed at all. Some ac- knowledged that microfiche might af- ford some savings in space and distri- bution costs, but that the user was not being considered. For most of those responding, micro- fiche was merely acceptable at best, but even this opinion was reluctantly given. TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO ITEM 1 ON VERSION 1 AND 2 QuESTIONNAIRES Microfiche as a technical informa- 1st 2nd tion medium is: Version Version Total Percent excellent 1 0 1 1.5 very good 0 11 11 16.7 acceptable 8 21 29 43.9 poor 2 16 18 27.3 unacceptable 2 1 3 31.8 <~