Use of 'leading-edge' information systems by academic chemists in the UK: part II. Constraints and the need for usability engineering

摘要

The purpose of this project has been to investigate the current use of automated chemical information systems by academic chemists in the UK. More specifically, it was concerned with the use of advanced information systems, which we refer to as 'leading-edge' systems, rather than online bibliographic databases. These include structure-based reaction indexing and synthesis planning systems, spectral databases, X-ray diffraction databases, molecular modelling systems, property prediction systems, etc. To this end, chemistry staff at 26 UK universities were surveyed using a combination of telephone interviews and a postal questionnaire. With the exception of the chemistry staff at the Queen's University of Belfast, there was no duplication of the sample population in the two modes of survey. In part I in this series, we have described the findings of a preliminary telephone survey and, in this paper (part II), we will discuss the results of a detailed postal questionnaire survey. The sample in this case consisted of 16 universities, which were selected based on research rating categories and geographic locations and which produced a response of 57%. This enabled us to create an extensive profile of chemists and their use of various 'leading-edge' systems. According to this survey, around 60% of respondents are currently making use of 'leading-edge' systems, which is much higher than what we found in the telephone survey (39%), However, this discrepancy is due to the bias of the respondents in the postal survey towards those who are users of information systems. Since the telephone survey involved almost 100% staff in each department, it is a more reliable measure of the extent of use of 'leading-edge' systems by academics. The postal survey also investigated the reasons for the current low customer base for these systems. These include factors such as cost, training, computer literacy, technical support and usability issues, including 'gaps' in information provision. Based on the results, we have also investigated the use of 'leading-edge' systems in relation to: (i) research productivity of departments as measured by the Universities Funding Council's (UFC) research assessment exercise and (ii) subject specialisation of chemists (via organic, inorganic, physical and analytical). It was found that those departments which received a higher research, rating (3, 4 or 5) in the last UFC rating are also more progressive in the use of 'leading-edge' systems. The figures ranged from 38.5% for a department with a rating of 2, to 80% for a department which received a top rating of 5. Further statistical analysis, however, showed only a small correlation, perhaps not very significant, between the two factors. Regarding subject specialisation, our results confirmed the findings of the telephone survey; namely, organic and inorganic chemists make more use of these systems than physical chemists. This is because most of the currently available 'leading-edge' systems are srtucture-based and therefore are of less use to physical chemists whose information need has an alphanumeric format.The paper concludes with a number of recommendations to promote the increased use of information, systems by academic chemists in the UK and elsewhere.