Demographic and student library use were logged over the course of a semester at a single Australian university. The findings raised some questions about the initial hypothesis -- of all students, both those whom remained at university and did not, very few actually took out a physical book from the library. There was a higher rate of student library usage by retained students, but that may partially have been due to the fact that once students dropped out, they no longer had access to (or a need to) use the library. What the authors found significant were "the significant differences found for use of library workstations and other electronic resources and retention early in the semester [which] may be the most useful results to emerge from the study" (Haddow & Joseph 2010: 240). There was little difference in terms of library use and retention between SES groups, although, "overall, the differences in library use between the SES groups were not statistically significant over the semester; however, PC logins at 1 April were significantly higher for students from low SES backgrounds than their colleagues from medium and high SES backgrounds" (Haddow & Joseph 2010: 240-241).

The study design and approach seems flawed from the beginning, given its emphasis on using the physical location of the library, which the authors admit is relatively outdated, given the number of students who access the library virtually, either at workstations or remotely, versus the relative paucity that use its physical resources. Even giving undue emphasis to the use of workstations as proof of student engagement with the library seems questionable and unwise, since less affluent students will invariably have a greater need to use the physical location of the library if they lack ready computer access. The most committed of the least affluent students, logic would dictate, would use the workstations; more affluent students would use home computers and less committed students would eschew the library entirely.

Instead of determining the correlation between retention and library usage, a more interesting question would be the correlation between effective library use and retention, an area which students from high SES backgrounds might have an advantage and explain their higher retention rates. The incoming class could have been given and Internet-administered quiz asking them such questions as how to use the online library catalogue; how to access an academic database; and their relative comfort level in conducting academic research. This would have allowed researchers to compare demographic characteristics with responses. At the end of the semester, the retention rates of the class vs. their scores on the initial quiz could be assessed to see if comfort and confidence in using the library gave an advantage to incoming students in terms of their overall freshman year career.