
















































RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

Piloting a diversity, equity, and inclusion needs assessment to 
explore patron perceptions at a university health science library 
 
Jane Morgan-Daniel, MLIS, MA, AHIP, Corresponding Author 
Community Engagement and Health Literacy Liaison Librarian 
Assistant University Librarian 
George A. Smathers Libraries 
University of Florida Health Science Center 
Gainesville, Florida  
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4047-8669   
morgandanie.jane@ufl.edu 
 
Lauren E. Adkins, MLIS, AHIP 
College of Pharmacy Liaison Librarian 
George A. Smathers Libraries 
University of Florida Health Science Center 
Gainesville, Florida  
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0914-2086 
lauren.adkins@ufl.edu 
 
Michele R. Tennant, PhD, MLIS, FMLA, AHIP 
Interim Senior Director, Academic Research Consulting and Services (ARCS) 
George A. Smathers Libraries 
University of Florida Health Science Center 
Gainesville, Florida  
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8439-6772  
tennantm@ufl.edu  
 
Hannah F. Norton, MSIS, AHIP 
Department Chair 
George A. Smathers Libraries 
University of Florida Health Science Center 
Gainesville, Florida  
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8062-2763  
nortonh@ufl.edu 
 
Chloe Hough, MLIS,  
Evening Circulation Supervisor 
George A. Smathers Libraries 
University of Florida Health Science Center 
Gainesville, Florida  
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4865-3049  
choughatuf@ufl.edu 
 
Mary E. Edwards, MLIS, EdD 
Liaison Librarian 
George A. Smathers Libraries 
University of Florida Health Science Center 
Gainesville, Florida  
meedwards@ufl.edu 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4047-8669
mailto:morgandanie.jane@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0914-2086
mailto:lauren.adkins@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8439-6772
mailto:tennantm@ufl.edu
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8062-2763
mailto:nortonh@ufl.edu
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4865-3049
mailto:choughatuf@ufl.edu
mailto:meedwards@ufl.edu


RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

Matthew Daley, MLIS 
Webmaster and Designer 
George A. Smathers Libraries 
University of Florida Health Science Center 
Gainesville, Florida  
daleym@ufl.edu  
 
Melissa L. Rethlefsen*, MSLS, AHIP 
Executive Director and Professor 
Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center 
University of New Mexico 
Albuquerque, New Mexico 
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5322-9368  
mlrethlefsen@gmail.com 
 
*Ms. Rethlefsen is the former Fackler Director, Health Science Center Libraries, University of Florida 
 
ABSTRACT 
 
Objective: A diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) needs assessment was conducted at 
a health sciences library. The objectives were to (1) quantitatively assess patrons’ 
attitudes towards the existing DEI climate in the library and (2) qualitatively identify 
contextual factors influencing patrons’ perceptions. The purpose was to better 
understand patrons’ views of the DEI climate in order to identify potential gaps, 
strengths, and areas of improvement within the library. 
  
Population: The assessment was led by a DEI Team at the University of Florida’s 
Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL). HSCL serves the university’s six health 
science colleges from two sites, Gainesville and Jacksonville. HSCL Gainesville was 
selected as the study location, due to higher annual footfall within the physical library. 
 
Methods: Two “HappyOrNot” customer satisfaction machines were placed by library 
exits. Twelve DEI-related questions were displayed on the machines, one question per 
week, for the duration of 12 weeks total. Additionally, a box for open-ended comments 
was placed by each machine. The survey used convenience sampling and was 
anonymous. 
 
Findings: The total number of responses was 3,445, with 7 written comments. Overall, 
respondents felt happiest with the library’s welcoming and home-like environment. The 
library was perceived by many as a physically safe space. Most also felt that the library 
demonstrates a commitment to DEI and that they are treated fairly, equitably, and with 
respect by library staff. Areas of concern were a perceived lack of respect from other 
library visitors, as well as library services for patrons with disabilities and non-native 
English language speakers. 

mailto:daleym@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5322-9368
mailto:mlrethlefsen@gmail.com


RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

 
Conclusions: The project enabled the HSCL to gather important information 
concerning patrons’ perceptions of the library’s DEI climate and their associated needs. 
The HappyOrNot machines provided a straightforward and convenient method for 
patron feedback. However, limitations of the pilot included the inability to obtain 
participants’ demographic information as well as the anecdotal evidence indicating that 
some respondents did not read the questions. Future plans therefore involve a follow-up 
online survey with detailed demographic questions and further use of the HappyOrNot 
machines to conduct additional micro-assessments. 
 
Keywords: diversity, equity, inclusion; climate assessment; needs assessment; medical 
libraries; health sciences libraries 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
In October 2018, the Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL) at the University of 
Florida (UF) formed a new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Team. The Team was 
created by the HSCL’s director in alignment with a new strategic direction for diversity, 
equity, and inclusion identified by UF’s George A. Smathers Libraries, of which the 
HSCL is a part [1]. One of the Team’s earliest priorities—falling under one of its stated 
goals to “assess and identify diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice opportunities within 
the HSCL’s spaces”—was to understand patrons’ views of the diversity, equity, and 
inclusion (DEI) climate in HSCL and thus identify potential gaps, strengths, and areas of 
improvement. To do so, HSCL piloted the use of two “HappyOrNot” customer 
satisfaction machines to conduct a DEI needs assessment, with the purpose of 
exploring the DEI-related issues facing library patrons. It was anticipated that the results 
would inform the team’s future directions by opening a dialogue with patrons about their 
DEI-related needs. 
 
The HSCL has two physical library sites in Florida, one on the main UF campus in 
Gainesville and the other at a teaching hospital in Jacksonville, called the Borland 
Library. The DEI Team has members from both sites and is composed of library faculty, 
staff, and student assistants. HSCL Gainesville was the location selected for this study. 
The library serves the university’s six health science colleges in addition to a number of 
associated centers and institutes and as such experiences a significantly higher level of 
foot traffic in the physical library throughout the year (e.g., in 2019 over 200,000 walk-in 
patrons visited HSCL Gainesville). HSCL Gainesville’s patrons include, but are not 
limited to, the health science center colleges’ faculty, staff, and students, as well as 
hospital patients and members of the public. The HappyOrNot assessment launched on 
April 12, 2019, and ran until July 8, 2019. The study’s aim was to explore the DEI-



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

related issues currently experienced by HSCL patrons in Gainesville. Its objectives were 
to (1) quantitatively assess patrons’ attitudes towards the existing DEI climate in the 
library and to (2) qualitatively identify contextual factors influencing patrons’ perceptions. 
 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
 
Assessing patron satisfaction in libraries 
 
The inspiration for the needs assessment was a study conducted by the University of 
Central Florida (UCF), in which HappyOrNot machines were used alongside several 
other micro-assessments to elicit patron feedback regarding library services, events, 
resources, and policies [2]. The goal of the micro-assessments was to decrease the 
time taken to obtain feedback in comparison to more common methods of assessments 
such as surveys and focus groups. According to UCF, the HappyOrNot machines were 
an effective method for gauging patrons’ opinions on library policies and resources. 
Overall, the micro-assessments enabled the librarians to quickly obtain feedback from 
patrons, allowing them to create solutions more efficiently.  
 
HappyOrNot machines are utilized globally to measure customer satisfaction in a variety 
of sectors such as retail, transportation, restaurants, education, healthcare, and human 
resources [3]. The machine terminals have four emoji buttons: a “very positive” green 
smiling emoji, a “positive” light green slightly smiling emoji, a “negative” light red slightly 
frowning emoji, and a “very negative” red frowning emoji. Users can press an emoji 
button to answer questions on the terminal screen, thereby recording their experiences 
and responses in real time.  
 
When considering selecting HappyOrNot as the data collection instrument for this study, 
the DEI Team had a number of initial concerns about the emojis and the color 
combinations of the buttons. These concerns related to whether the associated 
meaning of the buttons would be clearly conveyed to all patrons, including international 
students and people with color-blindness or autism. These concerns were allayed 
through a literature search pertaining to emojis and color as methods of communication. 
 
Communicating emotion through emojis and color associations 
 
Emojis consist of facial images that convey a variety of emotions in pictorial form and 
have been used by industries to gauge users’ satisfaction [4]. For example, Jaeger et. 
al’s study demonstrates how emoji surveys were successfully used to measure 
customers’ satisfaction concerning new food and beverage products [5]. Emojis have 
also been used for educational purposes; for example, a study by Voss discusses the 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

use of emojis to teach children with autism how to better recognize emotions [6]. The 
DEI Team found this article encouraging, as it indicated that the meaning of 
HappyOrNot emojis would be inclusive for most patrons.  
 
Regarding color, many studies discuss the use of color to convey particular emotions or 
to assess participants' perceived emotions. A study of college students conducted by 
Kaya and Epps found that participants universally attributed the red to anger when 
assigning colors to emotional reactions. [7] In contrast, the color green was mainly 
associated with positive emotions due to reminding participants of nature. When 
seeking to obtain participant feedback, the literature illustrates that not all cultures and 
nationalities ascribe the same meaning to colors and emotions. A seminal study by 
Saito found that people from Japan and nearby Asian countries often have a preference 
for the color white due to religious connotations [8]. Study participants associated white 
with cleanliness, purity, harmony, beauty, and gentleness. Similarly, a study conducted 
by Hupka with participants from Germany, Mexico, Poland, Russia, and the United 
States found that the colors red and black were universally associated with anger [9]. 
Even though studies have shown that various cultures and nationalities can hold 
different emotional associations for color, the association of green with the emotion of 
positivity and red with negativity is common across several cultures and nationalities [7-
10]. After reviewing this literature, the DEI Team therefore felt comfortable moving 
forward with piloting the use of the HappyOrNot machines for the needs assessment.  
 
DEI climate assessments 
 
The development of the pilot questions stemmed from a search conducted for DEI 
assessment literature in February 2019. First, the team looked for existing DEI climate-
related surveys within the librarianship and health literature. The majority of these 
search results focused on surveying employees not patrons. For example, the literature 
highlights the recurring use of ClimateQUAL, which is an instrument frequently used 
within libraries to assess organizational climate through staff perceptions [11].  
 
The search was therefore expanded to encompass university-level DEI surveys, which 
are often accessible through Google as grey literature in the form of reports. The 
Google search yielded useful results. The first was Case Western Reserve University’s 
climate survey, which used Likert Scale questions to assess how students and faculty 
perceived the environment for inclusion and diversity [12]. These questions pertained to 
participants’ general comfort levels, their experiences of discrimination, and whether 
they felt that the environment encourages diverse groups of people to interact. Overall, 
the results illustrated “differences both among and within groups by gender, 
race/ethnicity, and international status” (p.1) [12]. Another source of inspiration for the 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

HappyOrNot questions was the University of Michigan’s campus climate survey on 
diversity, equity and inclusion [13]. Participants were asked to indicate their level of 
agreement with a number of statements, including those focused on institutional 
commitment to DEI and on individuals being valued, treated with respect, and feeling 
they belong. The survey found that students with historically marginalized identities 
experienced the campus less positively [13].  
 
At the time of planning the pilot, the DEI Team’s Lead was a member of the Medical 
Library Association’s (MLA) Diversity and Inclusion Task Force and, as such, helped 
with question formation for an online general membership survey that took place in 
2019 [14]. The survey’s purpose was to facilitate deeper understanding of the 
membership’s demographics and their feelings in relation to MLA’s DEI efforts. Three 
questions from the survey were repurposed for the HappyOrNot assessment: “I have 
felt welcomed and included at MLA annual meetings”; “I feel MLA has a strong 
commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion”; and “I feel I am treated with respect in 
MLA.”  
 
Since the original searches in early 2019, the librarianship literature has expanded to 
include three new sources of relevance. The first is Pionke’s article which concludes by 
emphasizing the importance of conducting recurring DEI surveys, ideally every three 
years [14]. Secondly, Jones and Murphy discuss how DEI climate surveys benefit library 
administration through enabling leaders to assess organizational readiness for 
“maintaining and supporting an environment that is safe, inclusive, and welcoming” 
(p.79) [15]. Finally, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction provides a reflection 
tool for libraries seeking to evaluate services on an ongoing basis through a DEI lens 
[16]. The guide is a checklist that encourages organizations to reflectively consider their 
communities’ demographics, to ensure that every patron feels “safe, welcomed, and 
respected” throughout all library experiences. 
 
METHODS 
 
Twelve closed-ended questions (Table 1) were developed through team discussion and 
consensus, based on the recurring DEI assessment themes discovered in the literature: 
welcome, respect, inclusivity, accessibility, physical and emotional safety, fair and 
equitable treatment, and organizational commitment to DEI. The overarching purpose of 
these questions was to facilitate assessment of the library’s DEI climate by evaluating 
patrons’ satisfaction with the library’s physical space, library services, and staff attitudes 
and behaviors. The questions were displayed on two HappyOrNot machines, one 
question per week, for the duration of 12 weeks total. A comment box was placed by 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

each machine, so that patrons could provide open-ended written responses to the 
weekly questions if they chose to while still maintaining their anonymity. 
 

Week 1 Do you feel welcome at this library? 

Week 2 Do you feel you are treated with respect by this library’s staff? 

Week 3 Do you feel you are treated with respect by other visitors at this library? 

Week 4 Do you feel this library is an inclusive physical space? 

Week 5 Do you feel this library is a physically safe place for people of all 
backgrounds? 

Week 6 Do you feel this library is an emotionally safe space? 

Week 7 Are you satisfied with this library’s services for people whose native 
language is not English? 

Week 8 Do you feel this library reliably meets the needs of individuals with 
disabilities? 

Week 9 Do you feel this library is a welcoming environment for families? 

Week 10 Do you feel you are treated fairly and equitably at this library? 

Week 11 Do you feel that this library’s staff will take appropriate action in 
response to incidents of discrimination? 

Week 12 Do you feel this library demonstrates a strong commitment to diversity, 
equity, and inclusion? 

Table 1 HappyOrNot questions by week 
 
Two HappyOrNot machines were purchased by the HSCL and placed by high-traffic 
library exits on the first and second floors. Specifically, the Smiley Terminal, depicted in 
Figure 1, was selected as this model is light-weight and portable, runs on batteries so is 
wireless, and has a simple interface encompassing a sleeve for printed questions. An 
additional advantage was that the data analysis process was expected to be mostly 
automated as these terminals are linked to a web-based software that compiles 
respondents’ feedback as it is submitted.  
 
In terms of initial machine set-up, the online software provided access to a personalized 
HappyOrNot dashboard to which the 12 assessment questions were added. Each 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

question had to be entered separately and the dates during which each question would 
be active had to be scheduled. This added a layer of complexity to the data collection 
process because, although the software was straightforward to use, the weekly question 
displayed on the actual HappyOrNot terminals needed to be printed. This meant that the 
DEI Team needed to physically change out the printed question on the correct dates to 
ensure that patrons’ responses matched the correct question on the web-based 
dashboard. 
 
For the design of the printed questions, the DEI Team chose dark text on a white 
background. An explanatory sentence was added to each printout stating “HSC Library 
staff want to better understand your experiences relating to diversity & inclusion in the 
library – please provide feedback to help us enhance services.” This design was 
replicated on the two comment boxes (Figure 1). 

 
 
Figure 1 Image of the HSCL’s HappyOrNot Smiley Terminal and comments box 
 
After the study was approved as IRB exempt (IRB201900781), the pilot launched on 
April 12, 2019, and ran until July 8, 2019. An earlier timeframe was initially selected to 
coincide with the spring semester, but machine-ordering delays meant that the study 
continued into finals week and the beginning of the summer semester. The assessment 
was promoted through the library’s Facebook and Twitter accounts, through the 
website, and in-person by the desk staff. 
 
FINDINGS 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

 
The total number of responses received for all questions was 3,445 across both 
HappyOrNot terminals, along with 7 written comments. The response rate was 
approximately 4.3% as around 81,000 visitors entered the library during the assessment 
period. Patterns of gate count matched well with the number of responses over the 
study timeframe. The first two weeks of the assessment occurred during the last two 
weeks of the semester, and average gate count and response numbers were 13,979 
and 724 respectively (19.3 visits per response). Weeks 4 through 12 reflect the lower 
gate count seen during intersession and summer sessions weeks, with average gate 
count as 4,631 and response numbers averaging 184 (25.2 visits per response). Finals 
week was the outlier, with 11,413 entrances and exits but only 342 responses (33.4 
visits per response).  
 
Quantitative results 
 
The quantitative results were automatically collated through the HappyOrNot software, 
by number of responses per question and percentages of responses by question, for 
the four available button options on the machines. Microsoft Excel was used to filter the 
data by time period (weeks, days, hours) and by location within the library (first or 
second floor). Overall, the team was excited to see that the majority of the responses 
received for all 12 questions was “very positive.” 
 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

 
Figure 2 Quantitative results by percentage of responses for weeks 1–12 
 
The highest number of responses for the whole assessment were received for the first 2 
questions posted, which were Do you feel welcome at this library? (828 responses) and 
Do you feel you are treated with respect by this library’s staff? (620 responses).  
 
Figure 2 shows the responses for all 12 questions, broken down by the percentage of 
individuals answering for “very positive,” “positive,” “negative,” and “very negative.” The 
following questions had the highest percentages of responses for “very positive” and 
“positive”:  
 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

• Do you feel you are treated fairly and equitably at this library? (combined 98% for 
“very positive” and “positive” from 91 responses) 

• Do you feel this library demonstrates a strong commitment to diversity, equity, 
and inclusion? (combined 98% for “very positive” and “positive” from 106 
responses) 

• Do you feel you are treated with respect by this library’s staff? (combined 97% for 
“very positive” and “positive” from 620 responses) 

• Do you feel this library is a physically safe place for people of all backgrounds? 
(combined 95% for “very positive” and “positive” from 259 responses)  

 
The questions with the largest percentage of “negative” and “very negative” responses 
were as follows:  
 

• Do you feel you are treated with respect by other visitors at this library? 
(combined 10% “very negative” and “negative” from 342 responses) 

• Are you satisfied with this library’s services for people whose native language is 
not English? (8% combined “negative” and “very negative” from 163 responses)  

• Do you feel this library reliably meets the needs of individuals with disabilities? 
(7% “negative” or “very negative” from 261 responses) 

 
The results were also analyzed by the overall number of positive (“positive” combined 
with “very positive”) and negative (“negative” combined with “very negative”) responses 
per hour over the whole 12-week period (Appendix A). The highest number of negative 
responses received coincided with the hours that had the most overall responses, which 
was around lunchtime between 12pm and 2pm. The same pattern held true for the 
highest number of positive responses received. An exception to this was the negative 
results often received between 7am and 9am, which we attribute to the unavoidable 
daily noise that the library cleaners make during this time period. 
 
In terms of the highest percentages of positive or negative responses per hour 
throughout the whole assessment period, participants responded most favorably at 
2am, 3am, and 5am (100% “very positive” or “positive”) and most unfavorably at 4am 
and 6am (50-60%). However, due to the smaller number of overall responses at these 
times (2am, n=8; 3am, n=5; 4am, n=2; 5am, n=2; 6am, n=4), little weight can be placed 
on these findings. 
 
Finally, the results were analyzed by the location of the terminals (Appendix B). 
Unsurprisingly, the machine at the main entrance of the library, on the first floor by the 
information services desk, collected 72% (2,488) of the total responses. During the 
assessment period, the second floor entrance received approximately 40% as much 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

traffic as the first floor; likewise, 28% (1,273) of the total responses were from the 
second floor. Responses from the second floor were slightly more negative (combined 
8.16% “very negative” and “negative” from 104 responses) than those from the first floor 
(combined 2.74% “very negative” and “negative” from 88 responses). 
 
Qualitative results 
 
Only 7 written responses were received via the comment boxes over the entire 12-week 
period of the survey. These qualitative results were thematically analyzed, with written 
responses divided into three categories: positive, mixed, and negative. 
 
Three of the seven responses were extremely positive, suggesting that the library is 
perceived as a welcoming and homey place and that patrons appreciate the personal 
greetings they receive when they walk in from the desk staff: 
 

“Best. library. ever. I love how the staff always says ‘Hi’ when you walk in. I feel 
at home here.” (Week 1) 

 
“LOVE THIS LIBRARY” (Week 7) 

 
“Yaaaaaaaaaaaa :)” (Week 8) 

 
Two of the written responses were mixed with one response again implying that the 
library is perceived to be a welcoming and safe space and the other referring positively 
to DEI. At the same time, the mixed responses also commented on aspects of the 
library space that could be improved: 
 

“Diversity is good but please do not eat snacks in [the] library” (Week 1) 
 

“I really enjoy coming here, I feel welcome & safe. I feel sometimes it could be a 
little cleaner.” (Week 1) 

 
The final two responses were negative. Both were received during the week the HSCL 
was experiencing problems with overnight access to the library via swipe-card (see the 
Discussion section): 
 

“Notify students of all 6 Health Colleges that they have 24 hour access and to 
use their IDs when [the] library is closed.” (Week 3) 

 
“Larger Warning and STOP signs!” (Week 3) 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

 
DISCUSSION 
 
Implications 
 
The quantitative and qualitative findings suggested that patrons are happiest with the 
library’s welcoming and home-like environment; the library is perceived by many as a 
physically safe space; patrons largely feel the library demonstrates a commitment to 
DEI; and patrons feel they are treated fairly, equitably, and with respect by library staff. 
  
Of concern, some patrons expressed that they did not receive enough respect from 
other library visitors. The HSCL has taken these responses seriously and has created a 
patron code of conduct, delineating expectations related to respect, language, and 
physical contact [17]. The code emphasizes to patrons that the library is a community 
space, welcoming and inclusive to all, and clearly communicates consequences for 
repeated violations. The team also created accompanying guidance documentation for 
staff regarding how to respond to specific instances of disruption and harassment as 
well as a three strikes policy to remove offenders. The pilot was administered during a 
time when the library experienced an ongoing malfunction in its overnight entrance to 
quiet study space, and it is possible that this contributed to patrons’ perceptions of lack 
of respect from other library users. During this timeframe, the library received numerous 
complaints about patrons causing noise and disruption through knocking on the doors 
and accidentally setting off the alarms. Subsequently, the issue with the doors has been 
resolved.  
 
Additionally, the library has been proactive in decreasing user error, by improving the 
visibility and readability of the door signage instructions for 24-hour library access and 
emailing all of the students from the six health science center colleges to remind them 
how to access the library outside of staffed hours. The library’s Marketing Team also 
produced a video tutorial on how to access the library after hours, which was distributed 
through the library’s social media pages [18]. 
 
Other concerns revealed by the assessment suggest that the library needs to improve 
its services for patrons with disabilities and non-native English language speakers. The 
result for disabilities is unfortunately not surprising. The HSCL encompasses three 
floors, with the main book collection and heavily used quiet study space located on the 
third floor and the information desk (check out, reserves, front-line 
information/reference) located on the first floor. There are no elevators in the library 
proper, and the building elevators and ADA door buttons were unreliable at times during 
the assessment period. Following the pilot, library administration advocated for 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

replacement of the ADA door buttons as well as the creation of a wheel-chair accessible 
option to enter the HSCL’s newly refurbished computer lab. Both of these improvements 
have been accomplished.  
 
The DEI Team was initially surprised by the results of the language-related question. On 
reflection, UF’s Health Science Center does have a large number of international 
graduate and professional students (12.01% of students from 33 countries) [19]. A large 
number of post-doctoral associates at UF are also international (41.9% of them are not 
U.S. citizens or nationals) [20]. Although UF does not keep statistics on the number of 
languages spoken at the university, these figures on the international presence suggest 
that large numbers of the UF community do not speak English as their primary 
language. While the responses to the language question points to an area of concern, it 
is not possible, based on the lack of specificity in the question, to determine exactly 
what needs to be improved in this area. Although HSCL cannot make all resources and 
signage in all languages, it is certainly within the library’s purview to be knowledgeable 
about language resources and services on campus and to train staff to better and more 
patiently communicate with patrons whose native language is not English. 
 
While the overall feedback related to staff respect, comfort, equity and safety was 
positive, the Team understands that ongoing success in DEI requires ongoing effort. We 
have organized a number of trainings for staff (micro-aggression, bystander 
intervention, and many others) and will continue to do so.  
 
LIMITATIONS 
 
While the library did implement a number of changes based on the HappyOrNot results, 
there were multiple limitations that hindered the team’s ability to conclusively answer all 
of its questions. Due to the structure of the HappyOrNot machines, there was no 
collection of demographic data, which made it impossible to discern whether diverse 
population groups experience the library differently. As such, we do not know whether 
the negative responses came from specific population groups. As the machines were 
located in the physical library, this meant that individuals who did not visit the library in 
person were unable to participate (such as distance students or those who may feel 
uncomfortable coming to the library). Since the purpose of the pilot was to assess 
patrons’ feelings about the library’s DEI climate, patrons who do not feel welcome at the 
library being excluded could skew the results to the positive. 
 
Another issue with the format of the pilot was anecdotal evidence indicating that patrons 
did not always read the questions and answer accordingly. Desk staff noticed patrons 
not fully reading the prompts, or not reading them at all, before hitting the response 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

buttons. For example, a team member working the information desk at the first floor 
entrance observed multiple instances of patrons hitting one of the buttons after 
incorrectly or incompletely reading the prompt and voicing their mistake afterwards, i.e., 
not realizing that the question was asking about DEI in the library. It was also observed 
that many patrons would repeatedly and sometimes excessively hit the “very positive” 
button without looking at the prompt when exiting the library. While this could indicate 
that the patrons are happy with the library in general, the unknown extent of repeat 
responses muddles the data regarding the specific questions posed. The disregard for 
the actual questions may have been a result of question fatigue or simply the fact that 
the HappyOrNot format is generally associated with customer satisfaction, causing 
patrons to not look at the specific wording presented each week. HappyOrNot’s website 
states that they are “the global leader in instant customer and employee satisfaction 
reporting.” If patrons are mainly familiar with seeing feedback machines in businesses 
and retail locations, it is possible that they would assume the question is asking about 
general satisfaction [3]. 
 
The timing of the assessment caused another barrier to participation. The pilot was 
launched toward the end of the spring semester, when the HappyOrNot machines 
arrived at the library after several ordering delays; based on the pilot start date, the 
study continued into finals week and the summer semester. Since many students opt 
not to take summer classes, a significant number leave Gainesville from May to August. 
As such, the library receives a significantly lower footfall during the summer in 
comparison to the fall and spring. In 2019 the number of visitors to the library dropped 
from 59,239 in April to 21,567 in May, a 64% decrease. This drop in overall library 
visitation during the assessment period is reflected in the lower participation rate in the 
later weeks of the pilot. As mentioned, most responses were received during the first 
two weeks of the study, the time that coincided with the end of the spring semester. 
During the final 6 weeks of the pilot, the number of responses was 1,017, accounting for 
30% of the total responses over the 12 weeks. While questions posed later in the 
assessment received fewer responses, this timeframe did allow the DEI Team to learn 
from users quickly and act accordingly, more so than if the study had been delayed to 
the fall semester. 
 
The DEI Team feels that the HappyOrNot machines were useful for gauging patrons’ 
general opinions of the library and its services, thereby concurring with UCF who used 
this data collection instrument during their own micro-assessments [2]. However, 
HappyOrNot machines are less useful for DEI-specific needs assessments, due to the 
inability to collect data on participants’ demographics. It is the team’s opinion that when 
paired with demographic data, the pilot questions used in this study would likely reveal 
whether underrepresented groups experience the library’s DEI climate differently to their 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

majority counterparts. The team therefore looks forward to gaining more detailed 
evidence through future iterations of this study. With those iterations, we also hope to 
compare our findings to Case Western Reserve University and the University of 
Michigan’s campus climate surveys [12, 13], in which participants with historically 
marginalized identities tended toward less positive experiences. 
 
FUTURE RESEARCH 
 
As described previously, our experiences suggest that HappyOrNot machines provide 
only a very cursory snapshot when considering specific issues within DEI. It is unclear 
whether respondents consistently read the questions or were aware that the questions 
changed every week—either of these issues had the potential to affect data collection. 
Of greater consequence was the inability to track who was answering and how, which 
made it impossible to determine whether underrepresented groups have different 
perceptions or experiences than their majority counterparts. 
 
In order to address some of the limitations of this pilot project, the HSCL has developed 
an online survey that includes detailed demographic questions (age, gender identity, 
race, sexual orientation, native language, international status, first generation status, 
and caregiving responsibilities). The survey includes the original HappyOrNot questions, 
augmented with new queries related to the inclusiveness of the library’s web presence 
and HSCL’s inclusiveness to families, diverse religions, and other identities. The DEI 
Team looks forward to analyzing the results of this assessment of inclusivity and to 
responding to any deficits discovered. 
 
The team also plans to complete a local library-based environmental scan, stemming 
from the priorities identified through the pilot HappyOrNot project and subsequent online 
survey. From the pilot’s results, we anticipate that the environmental scan will begin by 
focusing on current facilities and services for people with physical disabilities—
identifying current resources and resource gaps and areas for improvement such as 
where policies need to be made, training conducted, or resources publicized. Because 
the HappyOrNot pilot results suggest services for non-native English language speakers 
and persons with disabilities are of concern, the DEI Team plans to conduct focus 
groups with such patrons to find out which specific improvements the library can make 
to its spaces and resources to be more inclusive. 
 
The HSCL’s DEI assessment efforts will be an ongoing process. Although the 
HappyOrNot system is not ideal for a detailed assessment, it is possible that making its 
intent (DEI) and framework (the questions change) more apparent to patrons could yield 
results that better reflect their experiences and perceptions. As such, the team plans to 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

run a re-worked HappyOrNot assessment in 2022, post-Covid. In addition to an 
advertising campaign introducing the intent of the HappyOrNot assessment, it may be 
beneficial to switch questions every two weeks rather than every week, as this may give 
patrons who visit the library less frequently a better chance to respond to each question. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
It is crucial for libraries to continuously work towards incorporating DEI and social justice 
initiatives into their services for their communities while also as striving to become safe 
and welcoming spaces that celebrate the diversity of their patrons and staff. As 
evidenced by the literature, the majority of DEI-related surveys conducted in libraries 
tend to assess DEI climate through evaluating staff perceptions. However, it is also 
essential to evaluate patron perceptions on an ongoing basis through a DEI lens [15-
16].  
 
Overall, the HSCL DEI Team feels that this pilot project was fairly successful. The 
HappyOrNot machines enabled us to gather important information concerning patrons’ 
perceptions of the library’s DEI climate and their associated needs in relation to physical 
space, services, and staff attitudes and behaviors. The HappyOrNot machines provided 
a straightforward and convenient method for patron feedback, resulting in an impressive 
number of responses. However, for a more nuanced analysis of a library’s DEI climate, 
multiple data collection methods are recommended. 
 
In conclusion, it is essential to note that DEI work is an ongoing process that takes time, 
effort, innovation, and—most importantly—the ability to listen to and act on the needs of 
the communities being served. 
 
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS 
 
Conceived and designed project: MLR, JMD, HFN, MD 
 
Data Collection: JMD, MD, CEH, MRT, HFN, MLR, MEE, LEA 
 
Data Analysis: Quantitative: HFN, MEE; Qualitative: JMD 
 
Figures: HFN, MEE, MD 
 
Written Draft: JMD, LEA, MRT, CEH, HFN 
 
Article Revision: HFN, MRT, MLR, JMD, MEE, CEH, LEA, MD 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

 
Final Approval: JMD, CEH, HFN, LEA, MD, MEE, MLR, MRT 
 
REFERENCES 
 
1. University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries. Strategic directions [Internet]. 
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 2018 Dec [cited 1 Mar 2021].  
<https://uflib.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2021/04/Strategicdirections2018web.pdfhttps://librar
y.ufl.edu/pers/documents/Strategicdirections2018web.pdf>. 
2. Gillum S, Williams N, Gotschall T. A year of creative assessment: incorporating 
micro-assessments into the library [Internet]. Medical Library Association Conference: 
Chicago, IL; 2019 Mar 18 [cited 1 Mar 2021].  
<https://www.eventscribe.com/2019/MLA/assets/pdf/MLA19_Paper_Abstracts_March_1
8.pdf>. 
3. HappyOrNot [Internet]. [cited 1 Mar 2021]. <https://www.happy-or-
not.com/en/smiley-terminal/>. 
4. Rodrigues D, Prada M, Gaspar R, Garrido M, Lopes D. Lisbon emoji and 
emoticon database (LEED): norms for emoji and emoticons in seven evaluative 
dimensions. Behav Res. 2017 March 31;50:392–405. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0878-6. 
5. Jaeger S, Lee S, Kim K, Chheang S, Jin D, Ares G. Measurement of product 
emotions using emoji surveys: case studies with tasted foods and beverages. Food 
Qual Prefer. 2017 December; 62: 46–59. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.05.016. 
6. Voss C, Schwartz J, Daniels J, Kline A, Haber N, Washington P, Tariq Q, 
Robinson T, Desai M, Phillips J, Feinstein C, Winograd T, Wall D. Effect of wearable 
digital intervention for improving socialization in children with autism spectrum disorder: 
a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 May 1;173(5):446–454. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0285. 
7. Kaya N, Epps HH. Relationship between color and emotion: a study of college 
students. Coll Stud J. 2004 Sep;38(3):396–405.  
8. Saito M. Comparative studies on color preference in Japan and other Asian 
regions, with special emphasis on the preference for white. Color Res Appl. 1996 
Feb;21(1):35–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6378(199602)21:1<35::AID-
COL4>3.0.CO;2-6.  
9. Hupka RB, Zaleski Z, Otto J, Reidl L, Tarabrina NV. The colors of anger, envy, 
fear, and jealousy: a cross-cultural study. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1997 Mar;28(2):156–71. 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022022197282002. 
10. Yu HC. A cross-cultural analysis of symbolic meanings of color. Chang Gung 
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2014 Apr 1;7(1):49–74. 

https://uflib.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2021/04/Strategicdirections2018web.pdfhttps:/library.ufl.edu/pers/documents/Strategicdirections2018web.pdf
https://uflib.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2021/04/Strategicdirections2018web.pdfhttps:/library.ufl.edu/pers/documents/Strategicdirections2018web.pdf
https://www.eventscribe.com/2019/MLA/assets/pdf/MLA19_Paper_Abstracts_March_18.pdf
https://www.eventscribe.com/2019/MLA/assets/pdf/MLA19_Paper_Abstracts_March_18.pdf
https://www.happy-or-not.com/en/smiley-terminal/%3e.
https://www.happy-or-not.com/en/smiley-terminal/%3e.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0878-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.05.016
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0285
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6378(199602)21:1%3c35::AID-COL4%3e3.0.CO;2-6
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6378(199602)21:1%3c35::AID-COL4%3e3.0.CO;2-6
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022022197282002


RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

11. Association of Research Libraries. ClimateQUAL [Internet]. Washington, DC; 
[cited 10 Mar 2021]. <https://www.climatequal.org/home>. 
12. Case Western Reserve University. 2010 - 2011 Climate survey: results on 
common questions [Internet]. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University; 2011 
[cited 10 on Mar 2021]. <https://case.edu/diversity/about/diversity-climate-survey>. 
13. University of Michigan. Results of the 2016 University of Michigan student 
campus climate survey on diversity, equity and inclusion [Internet]. Anne Arbor, MI: 
University of Michigan; 2016 [cited 10 on Mar 2021]. <https://diversity.umich.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/DEI-STUDENT-REPORT-FINAL.pdf>. 
14. Pionke, J. Medical library association diversity and inclusion task force 2019 
survey report. JMLA. 2020 Jul;108(3):503–512. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.948. 
15. Jones SD, Murphy B. Diversity and inclusion in libraries: a call to action and 
strategies for success. Lanham, Maryland, 2019. Chapter 8: Recruiting and retaining a 
diverse workforce; p. 75–88.  
16. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. The inclusive services assessment 
and guide for Wisconsin public libraries [Internet]. Madison, WI; 2019 Jun [cited on 10 
Mar 2021]. <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599993.pdf>. 
17. University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries. Code of conduct [Internet]. 
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 2021 Apr [cited 1 Apr 2021]. 
<https://library.health.ufl.edu/about-us/library-user-policies/code-of-conduct/>. 
18. University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries. In today's #HowToLibrary 
post, we're reminding HSC students of their 24/7 access to our 2nd floor! We've been 
having some swipe card system issues, so if you're an HSC student and your card isn't 
working, drop by the 1st floor desk and we'll help get you sorted. Happy studying! 
[Internet]. 2021 Jan 7 [cited 1 Apr 2021]. 
<https://www.facebook.com/UFHSCL/posts/5027652200608520>. 
19. University of Florida Graduate School Data Management Unit. Re: Question 
about grad students and professional students. Email message to: Michele Tennant. 
2021 Mar 8, 11:15 a.m. [12 Lines]. 
20. University of Florida. UF facts workforce [Internet].  Gainesville, FL: University of 
Florida; 2021 Mar [cited on 1 Apr 2021]. 
<https://public.tableau.com/shared/D49WW6BX7?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_li
nk&:embed=y&:showVizHome=no>. 
 
  

https://www.climatequal.org/home
https://case.edu/diversity/about/diversity-climate-survey
https://diversity.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DEI-STUDENT-REPORT-FINAL.pdf
https://diversity.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DEI-STUDENT-REPORT-FINAL.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.948
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599993.pdf
https://library.health.ufl.edu/about-us/library-user-policies/code-of-conduct/
https://www.facebook.com/UFHSCL/posts/5027652200608520
https://public.tableau.com/shared/D49WW6BX7?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y&:showVizHome=no
https://public.tableau.com/shared/D49WW6BX7?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y&:showVizHome=no


RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

APPENDIXES 
 
Appendix A: Responses by Hour 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



RESEARCH  

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 33 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2021 

Appendix B: Percentage of Responses by Library Floor 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  


