Using the ACRL Value of Academic Libraries Research

Using the ACRL Value of Academic Libraries Research Review @ Your Library Sponsored by the VALE-NJ Assessment Committee FALL 2010 ELIZABETH LEONARD Anne Ciliberti, Elizabeth Leonard, Luis Rodriguez, & Mark Thompson

Introductions Anne Ciliberti, Director, William Paterson University Library Elizabeth Leonard, Director, Online Campus Library, Berkeley College Mark Thompson, Director, Middlesex County College Library Luis Rodriguez, Director, Kean University Library

Agenda Overview, ACRL “Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report” report (Sept. 2010) How to operationalize in our own libraries?

Overview Why? www. acrl. ala. org/value

Request for Proposal (RFP) Assumption: “the relevance of academic libraries is under question. ” Google Current Economic Climate Need to demonstrate their value

Are we still seen as the “heart of the university”? “I began my professional career in the late 1960 s, at the tail end of what must have been a ‘golden era, ’ when we rarely, if ever, said ‘no’ to any request for new content or services. That era is long behind us. So, too, are the days when arguing that the library deserves more financial support because it is a public good and because the costs of maintaining its collections and services are rising. ” (Kaufman 227) “It used to be that the way you put together a library budget was to look at like institutions and then argue for a little more. Now my provost is saying to me: ‘If I give you x dollars, what is the return on investment to the University? ’” [T. Scott Plutchak, Librarian, University of Alabama at Birmingham, as quoted in Luther 3] If we are seen no longer as the “heart of the university, ” what is it that we need to do to show our value to the institution?

RFP, continued Result must identify measurable surrogates that demonstrate the library’s impact on institutional goals Include best practices Explain how the report findings should inform data collection decisions of academic libraries going forward

Other Measurement of Value Projects Association of Research Libraries and the Institute of Museum and Library Services are partnering on a study to enrich, expand, test, and implement methodologies measuring the return on investment (ROI) in academic libraries. (“Lib-Value Project” n. p. )

Report Overview/To. C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DEFINING “VALUE” METHODOLOGY REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE Academic Library Expectations of Higher Education Reconceptualizing Academic Libraries Achieving Institutional Missions and Outcomes Assessment vs. Research Student Retention and Graduation Rates Student Engagement Student Learning Assessment Management Systems Faculty Teaching Faculty Research Library Valuation Reference Services E-Resources Institutional Ranking What About Accreditation? Societal Contribution A Reminder Regarding Scope What’s Next for Academic Library Value Studies? School Libraries Public Libraries Special Libraries WHAT TO DO NEXT Get Started Define Outcomes Use Assessment Management Systems Gather New Data Use Existing Data Engage in Higher Education Assessment External to Libraries Create Library Assessment Plans Mobilize Library Administrators Engage in Professional Development Leverage Professional Library Associations RESEARCH AGENDA Student Enrollment Student Retention Student Success Student Achievement Student Learning Student Experience, Attitude, and Perception of Quality Faculty Research Productivity Faculty Grants Faculty Teaching Institutional Reputation or Prestige CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDIX A – ACADEMIC LIBRARY VALUE CHECKLIST APPENDIX B – “MUST READ” RESOURCES

Parts of Presentation Elizabeth Leonard: In which ways can libraries measure value? Mark Thompson: What are the next steps advocated in the report? Anne Ciliberti: What can we do next?

Value of Academic Libraries, defined “…this report focuses on library value within the context of overarching institutions. It does not attempt to address methods for assessing library value within a library context. Therefore, this report does not emphasize measures of internal library processes, such as inputs and outputs. Nor does it focus on satisfaction or and service quality approaches. These measures are of great utility to librarians who seek to manage library services and resources, but they may not resonate with institutional decision makers as well as outcomesbased, mission-focused approaches. ” (Oakleaf 25)

Value Summation not input or outputs not how it defines its own value how it adds to institutional goals

Value of Academic Libraries Value= institutional, not library, goals. The value of an academic library is communicated by how it supports institutional goals Increasing retention/graduation rates Increasing student achievement Increasing faculty research output

Different Types of Value Measurements 1. Use 2. Return on Investment (ROI) 3. Production of a commodity 4. Library impact 5. Competing alternatives

#1, Use Traditional measures Circulation statistics Door clicks Useful for internal management Not compelling to external stakeholders/ institutional decision makers Must be tied to institutional outcomes to have real impact

#2, ROI Defined: Perceived costs: price, time, effort Difficult to use in academic settings (Oakleaf 20)

Luther, 2008 Grant income obtained using library materials/library budget= ROI on grant money on library (Luther 8)

#3, Production of a Commodity value= quantity of commodity produced x price per unit of commodity Challenges: finding “market price” Purchase/exchange value What would people be willing to pay for the service? Ability to pay Use own money or someone else’s? Students tend to undervalue immaterial goods (e. g. library services and information) Fail to account for externalities (Kelly, Mc. Nicoll, and Mc. Lellan 13)

#4, Library Impact Deals more with externalities Direct measurement is challenging Observe use and what is being produced as a result Librarians tend to avoid Measure surrogates of impact Student success Retention Seen as in keeping with institutional mission and purpose

#5, Competing Alternatives Choose library over other options (e. g. Google) Good v. Good enough Develop relationships with users to ensure they continue to choose libraries rather than alternatives

Which are most important? Value is entirely dependent on stakeholders’ concept of value Stakeholders tend to choose financial value (ROI) and Impact Value (#2, #4) The “business of higher education” – money is the bottom line Develop studies using both ROI and Impact Value ROI: How do libraries… …manage resources …bring money into the institution Impact: What does the library enable users to do?

Challenges and Opportunities Shift from value of products (e. g. , collections) to services (e. g. , librarian expertise and teaching) Value on Investment 1) What did the user get out of the library service? 2) What did the user accomplish as a result? (Saracevic and Kantor 540)

Value Thoughts Are all values equal? Should we treat them as such?

OK, then Next Steps • If you accept these premises; and agree with the core findings of research; • Then take steps to assess your library’s value within your institutional perspectives…. • See report, pp. 102 -140. (Oakleaf 103)

Next Steps According to the Report 1. Get Started 2. Define Outcomes 3. Use Assessment Management Systems 4. Gather New Data 5. Use Existing Data 6. Engage in Higher Education Assessment Efforts 7. Create Library Assessment Plans 8. Mobilize Library Administration 9. Engage in Professional Development 10. Leverage Association Connections

Gather Data Gather data for either: ROI assessment OR Outcomes-Focus: research, learning, & service contributions. “Librarians can develop systems that will allow data collection on individual user library behavior. ” “identify students who have had substantial library exposure and compare to those who have not. ” (Oakleaf 97)

Three Levels of Effort Level 1 = Uncover your campus-wide strategic goals [see overall institutional goals, p. 29], such as recruit and retain students; support teaching and learning. . Level 2= Review the potential surrogates for each goal and select. Example: see Figure 4, p. 54 Level 3 = Select possible areas of correlation (library measures) with each of these surrogates. Example: see p. 105.

Example Level 1: Goal: Student Learning Level 2: Possible surrogates Must be selected for your institution EXAMPLE: 1. Learning assessments 2. Faculty judgments (Oakleaf 41)

Surrogate #1: Learning Assessments Level 3: Brainstorm and then choose specific linkages, correlations, or relationships that can be measured.

Surrogate #2: Faculty Judgments The top set of correlations factor toward the Outcomes values calculations; and the bottom set factor toward the ROI calculations.

Success with the Process? What are the possible implications of this process? It assumes that we need to work more directly with faculty. To engage them in how library resources and services have impacted their teaching. It assumes that any library services or activities must directly impact student learning efforts. Course activities, such as students asking questions on Web. CT; as they request library materials; or as they conduct library research and use library resources.

A Call to Action? All assessment is local What does this Report say to us …as individuals? …as the VALE collective? Is there interest in doing something more?

Option One Share ideas, plans, assessment results? Informal quarterly think-tank forums?

Option Two Explore some of the VALUE assumptions among NJ CAOs? Conduct (replicate? ) a study of how our administrators view/define/describe “library value”? • Deborah Grimes, 1993 • Beverly Lynch, 2007 • Leigh Estabrook, 2007 • Barbara Fister, 2010

Option Three Conduct a VALE-wide study of academic library impact? • Dickenson’s 2005 Colorado Academic Library Impact Study: How Academic Libraries Help Faculty Teach and Students Learn?

Option Four Design a new study that combines CAO views, with those of faculty and students, such as “Teaching, Learning and Research in New Jersey: The Role and Value of Academic Libraries as Expressed by Chief Academic Officers, Faculty and Students”?

Discussion Bibliography comprehensive Report written as toolkit What do you think of the report’s central findings? Institutional leaders define value Communicate the value of academic libraries by how they support institutional goals Relate library activities to report surrogates Should all institutional priorities be equal? (retention v. student learning) What happens when externals change (senior leadership)? Are the steps to determining impact realistic?

Conclusion What has worked for you? What’s next for us?

Thank you! To get your own copy of the report, visit: www. acrl. ala. org/value