Purpose -The purpose of this study is to report on the findings of the two-year Association of Research Libraries (ARL) sponsored project, "Making Library Assessment Work: Practical Approaches to Effective and Sustainable Assessment,"; it aims to examine the organizational factors that facilitate and impede effective data use and the implications for assessment in research libraries. Design/methodology/approach -Information was gathered from a variety of sources, including: a self-evaluation of assessment activities and needs done by each of the 24 participating libraries; extensive discussion with a designated contact at each library; a review of library and institutional sources such as annual reports, strategic plans, accreditation self-studies, ARL and IPEDS statistics; and the observations and discussion that occurred during 1.5 day site visits. Findings -The paper finds that libraries surveyed have made some progress incorporating data in decision making and services improvement, but there is much work to be done. Originality/value -This is not an evidence-based practice study but rather one that examines why evidence (the data on which a decision may be based) is not used more widely in libraries.
Purpose -This paper aims to report on the first phase of a two-year project sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries, "Making Library Assessment Work: Practical Approaches for Developing and Sustaining Effective Assessment". Design/methodology/approach -This paper reports on the project, which is intended to provide libraries with the knowledge and understanding necessary to select and apply appropriate measurement techniques, and to use assessment data in decision making. The focus of this effort is on practical and sustainable approaches to effective assessment. The paper is particularly interested in the successful application of assessment within different organizational cultures and moving library assessment from a project-based approach to a more programmatic, integrated, and sustainable operation within libraries. Findings -The findings of the study indicate that all the ARL libraries in Phase I are developing a stronger understanding of the value of assessment and library leadership supports this movement. It finds that there are staff in each library who have good research methodology skills, although they may not be involved in assessment efforts. It reveals that areas that did not receive a passing grade in most libraries included resource allocation, sustainability, prioritizing needs, choosing the appropriate assessment method, using data for improvement, and communicating assessment results. Originality/value -The paper provides useful information on a project intended to help librarians in decision making.
Objective – To examine why faculty members at Columbia University are dissatisfied with the library’s journal collections and to follow up on a previous study that found negative perceptions of journal collections among faculty at Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member institutions in general. Methods – In 2006, Jim Self of the University of Virginia published the results of an analysis of LibQUAL+® survey data for ARL member libraries, focusing on faculty perceptions of journal collections as measured by LibQUAL+® item IC-8: “print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work.” The current analysis includes data from 21 ARL libraries participating in the LibQUAL+® survey from 2006 through 2009. Notebooks for each library were accessed and reviewed for the Information Control and overall satisfaction scores. At Columbia, the results were used to identify departments with negative adequacy gaps for the IC-8 item. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted with 24 faculty members in these departments, focusing on their minimum expectation for journal collections, their desired expectations, and preferences for print or electronic journals. Results – Analysis of the 2009 LibQUAL+® scores shows that faculty across ARL libraries remain dissatisfied with journal collections. None of the libraries achieved a positive adequacy gap, in which the perceived level of service exceeded minimum expectations. There was no significant change in the adequacy gap for the IC-8 item since 2006, and satisfaction relative to expectations remained consistent, showing neither improvement nor decline. While most of the faculty members interviewed at Columbia stated that the journal collections met their minimum expectations, 15 of 24 reported that the library did not meet their desired level of service in this area. Key issues identified in the interviews included insufficient support from library staff and systems regarding journal acquisition and use, the need for work-arounds for accessing needed journals, problems with search and online access, collection gaps, insufficient backfile coverage, and the desire for a discipline-specific “quick list” to provide access to important journals. Conclusion – The issue of satisfaction with journal collections is complex, and faculty members have little tolerance for faulty systems. The evolution of the electronic journal collections and the inherent access challenges will continue to play a critical role in faculty satisfaction as libraries strive to provide ever-better service.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.