Executive Summary

Quantitative Key Results and Findings

Library Satisfaction 

• Overall Satisfaction: Slight increase from 4.30 (2022) to 4.37 (2025); “Very Satisfied” rose from 49.5% to 52.9%. [Goal#1]
• Collection Satisfaction:
  • Improved: Slight rise in archives and rare books, digital formats, e-books, and printed books. [Goal#1]
  • Declined: Slight drop in E-journals, from 4.29 to 4.26.
  • Notable Rise: E-books from 34.7% to 39.9% in the “Very Satisfied” category. [Goal#1]
  • Areas for Improvement: Digital formats were below the “Satisfied” category (4.0). [Goal#2] 
• Subgroup Highlights:
  • Faculty: Significant improvement from 4.29 to 4.46, especially in e-books from 3.91 to 4.21. [Goal#1] 
  • Students: Minor improvement from 4.31 to 4.34 [Goal#1]; slight drop in e-journals (4.26 to 4.16) and printed books (4.07 to 4.11); lower satisfaction in archives & rare books (3.96 below the overall average of 4.34), and digital formats (3.92 below the overall average of 4.34). [Goal#2] 
  • International Undergraduates: Decline in overall satisfaction from 4.45 to 4.12, with notably low ratings in archives & rare books (3.89) and digital formats (3.87), both falling below the "Satisfied” category (4.00). [Goal#3] 
  • Male Undergraduates: Slight decline in satisfaction from 4.37 to 4.32, with notably low ratings in all the collection types, except for e-journals (4.03), which are below the “Satisfied” category (4.0); print books saw a notable drop in “Very Satisfied” from 40.2% to 29.1%. [Goal#3] 

Library Meaningfulness 

• Stable Rankings: No major shifts from 2022 to 2025 in which libraries were considered most meaningful, with only a few exceptions, indicating that consistent value placed on departmental libraries alongside the Woodruff Library:
  • School of Nursing (by school): The Woodruff Library was highly valued across multiple schools, sometimes more than their own departmental libraries. For example, 77.9% of participants from the School of Nursing identified Woodruff as their most meaningful library—surpassing the 72.6% who selected the Health Sciences Library. [Goal#2] 
  • Theology Library (by library): Among all Theology respondents, 100% identified the Theology Library as their meaningful library. Interestingly, 49.4% of those who selected the Theology Library were from Emory College—more than double the 21.7% from the School of Theology. [Goal#2] 

Reading Preferences

• Minor Shift: Minor declines from 2022 to 2025 in preference for print across most types of reading, with a more notable drop in print preference for consulting textbook from 51.6% to 44.1%. [Goal#2] 
   
• Format Trends: 
  • Print: Still preferred for recreational reading (63.1%) and full-book or its large part (52.1%), though slightly declining. [Goal#2] 
  • E-books: Preferred for chapters for an assignment or research (61.4%) and career or interview prep (47.9%). [Goal#2] 
• Subgroup Insights: 
  • Undergraduates: Strong preference for print for recreational reading (74.4%). [Goal#2] 
  • Baby Boomers: Decreasing preference for print for recreational reading from 59.7% to 49.0% and for reading a whole book from 67.2% to 56.4%. [Goal#2] 
  • Pell Students: Increasing preference for print for consulting textbooks from 29.3% to 37.6% and for reading chapters from 15.9% to 24.8%. [Goal#3] 

E-Book Feature Preferences 

• Stable Rankings: No major shifts from 2022 to 2025 in most and least valued features. 
  • "Downloading the entire book to your device” remains most highly valued (from 60.4% to 62%). [Goal#2] 
  • “Downloading a chapter to your device” (from 36.6% to 36.1%) follows. [Goal#2] 
• Subgroup Variations: 
  • Faculty: Almost equally value “downloading the entire book” (53.2%) and “downloading a chapter” (46.8%). [Goal#2] 
  • Students: Value “downloading the entire book” (64.8%) more than “downloading a chapter” (32.7%). [Goal#2] 
  • International Students: Rising preference for mobile reading from fifth to second. [Goal#3] 
  • First-Gen Students: Rising preference for “cut and paste” from third to second. [Goal#3] 

Contribution for Academic Support 

• Faculty: 
  • Increased ratings in all areas of academic work from 2022 to 2025, especially with a significant rise in the “Achieving overall academic success” where the percentage of “Extremely Helpful” responses grew from 51.4% to 61.3%. [Goal#1] 
  • Lowest support in “Supporting use of technology in teaching and research” (3.82), which falls below the “Very Helpful” category (4.0). [Goal#2] 
• Medical Residents: 
  • Increased ratings in all areas of academic work from 2022 to 2025, especially with a significant rise in the “Enriching teaching and research” where the percentage of “Extremely Helpful” responses grew from 34.3% to 44.1%. [Goal#1] 
  • Lowest support in the areas of “Supporting my students’ learning and research” (3.84) and “Supporting use of technology in teaching and research” (3.73), which fall below the “Very Helpful” category (4.0). [Goal#2] 
• Post-docs (2025 only): 
  • High satisfaction, with ratings at above or just below the “Very Helpful” category (4.0), across all areas. [Goal#1] 
  • Lowest support in “Supporting use of technology in teaching and research,” which is still relatively high at 3.95 but falls below the “Very Helpful” category (4.0). [Goal#2] 
• Students: 
  • Increased ratings in all areas of academic work, from 2022 to 2025, especially with a significant rise in the “Providing spaces for group work” where the percentage of “Extremely Helpful” responses grew from 35.8% to 43.7%. [Goal#1] 
  • Lowest support in the areas of “Achieving overall academic success” (3.93), “Providing resources that contribute to my success” (3.90) and “Supporting learning and research” (3.89), which are still relatively high but fall below the “Very Helpful” category (4.0). [Goal#2] 
• Male Undergraduates: 
  • Lowest “Extremely Helpful” satisfaction ratings in the areas of “Achieving overall academic success” (28.7%), “Providing resources that contribute to my success” (28.6%) and “Supporting learning and research” (27.4%), all of which are well below 50%. [Goal#3] 

Inclusion, Accessibility, and Safety 

• Overall Improvement: All six diversity areas (accessibility, programs, materials, services, spaces, exhibitions) saw increased agreement ratings, all above 4.0 (“Strongly Agree”). [Goal#1] 
• Subgroup Concern: Asian Pell Grant students rated diverse programs lower (3.97) than average (4.21); further research recommended due to the small number of respondents. [Goal#3] 

Next Step: Use data related to Goal #1 to demonstrate our contribution to the success of community members. Use data related to Goal #2 to identify strategies that address the evolving needs of our community, supplementing quantitative analysis with follow-up research. Use data related to Goal #3 to uncover unique opportunities for further research and take action that supports Emory’s broader institutional and strategic goals.