Examining Collection-Related Language within Academic Library Strategic Plans

Does Size Matter? The Effect of Resource Base on Faculty Service Quality Perceptions in Academic Libraries

Objective – To investigate whether libraries achieve strategic credibility by assessing if strategic planning goals match the achievements described in annual reports.
 
 Design – Content analysis of annual reports and strategic plans from a sample of Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
 
 Setting – Academic libraries in Canada and the United States of America. 
 
 Subjects – A random sample of 12 Canadian and 16 American academic libraries. All libraries were members of ARL.
 
 Methods – The researcher contacted the directors of 28 ARL libraries and asked for copies of their strategic plans and annual reports. She also visited the websites of libraries to obtain the reports. The contents of the strategic plans and annual reports were analyzed, and trends in the Canadian and American strategic plans were identified.
 
 Main Results – This study found that only 39% of ARL libraries produce annual reports, making it difficult to assess if libraries have strategic credibility, as their strategic plans cannot be assessed against annual reports. The strategic plans gathered in this study were analyzed and emerging themes were identified. These included physical library space (renovations, expansions or new buildings); offsite storage; assessment (both of the libraries’ services, and of information literacy training); development activities such as fundraising and marketing; and personnel issues. Cultural differences also were found in the strategic plans, with American libraries being more focused on trends such as digitization and institutional repositories, and Canadian libraries’ plans being more focused on users’ needs. Trends in annual reports were not reported due to the small number of annual reports in the sample.
 
 
 Conclusion – This study gives a snapshot of the trends in strategic plans of ARL members. It shows that many ARL members do not produce an annual report, and that it is therefore difficult to assess if their strategic plans are implemented successfully. The article hypothesizes that the communication of achievements may now be part of development and marketing efforts, rather than traditional annual reports.

PurposePropelled by fast-evolving computational technology and cloud-based data storage, the increasing ease in research data collection is outstripping the capacity in research data service (RDS) in academic institutions. To illustrate the challenges and opportunities in providing RDS, the author provides a systematic review of the RDS offered in academic institutions and libraries by combining existing literature and survey data collected from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). In addition, the RDS websites of 2013 ARL survey-participating institutions are also examined. The aim of the paper is to provide an environmental scan of the current state of RDS provision in academic institutions, to add to the body of knowledge of RDS development, and to inform and enable academic libraries to make strategic RDS plans.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyzes the strategies used and levels of RDS provided by reviewing recent literature, exploiting existing survey data from ARL and ACRL, and examining RDS websites of the 2013 ARL survey-participating institutions, in areas that reflect the life cycle of RDS provision including research data management planning, metadata consultation and tool provision, data archiving, institutional repository provision and data sharing and access.FindingsThe overall offerings of the library-led research data services in ARL research-intensive institutions have shown signs of increasing. Increased engagement and expanded scope and level of services are two noticeable trends in academic library RDS provision. Academic libraries are taking advantage of open access repositories by advising researchers to use the available resources alongside their local repositories for data safe-keeping and sharing. Discussions on RDS policy and infrastructure development are inadequate or largely non-existent.Originality/valueThrough systematically reviewing current literature, drawing on the results of available surveys on RDS offerings by academic libraries conducted between 2009 and 2014 and examining and further reviewing the websites of these 2013 ARL survey-participating institutions, the author presents the current state of academic library activities in RDS provision, and provides a critical evaluation of the scope and level of services currently being offered in academic libraries, and the opportunities in RDS development, to add to the body of knowledge of RDS provision by academic institutions.

Web Usability Policies/Standards/Guidelines (PSGs) do not Influence Practices at ARL Academic Libraries

Public and internal library chat policies serve to set expectations for library patrons, as well as the library professionals who provide chat reference. These policies, or their absence, shape how academic libraries train for and assess their chat services, as well as how they provide chat instruction. In a post-pandemic environment, academic librarians can expect increasing use of distance services including chat reference. This case study reviews the public chat policies of “Big 12” and Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries across 12 categories. It also reviews the chat transcripts of two subject librarians from August 2017 through May 2018 and again from March 2020 through December 2021, the latter coinciding with the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study provides a look at the purposes and efficacy of internal and public chat reference policies.

Purpose Assessment activities in academic libraries continue to grow as libraries explore assessment endeavors. Ranging from basic stats gathering and reporting to surveys, focus groups, and usability studies and beyond. Many practitioners are finding it necessary to create new processes and programs, with little guidance. The purpose of this paper is to paint a broad picture of assessment activities in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) university libraries with the goal of creating a resource for libraries developing or improving their assessment programs. Design/methodology/approach A survey was developed that asked questions about assessment personnel, activities, mission, and website. A total of 113 surveys were sent to academic library members of ARL. Survey results were analyzed to compile a list of recommended good practices for assessment and working with assessment committees in academic libraries. Findings The investigators had a response rate of 43 percent. The open-ended nature of the survey questions allowed for the respondents to specifically narrow down the problems and opportunities inherent in library assessment committees. Originality/value This study takes the temperature of the current state of assessment programs in ARL libraries, demonstrating the growth of assessment programs. It begins to document the practices of these libraries, particularly in regards to the sometimes informal and hard to track use of committees and other in-house collaborations, as a first step toward developing best practices for the field. The results illuminate productive areas for further study, including investigating how to measure a culture of assessment and maximizing impact of assessment information presented on assessment websites.

Shaping Opportunity for Individuals Charles B. Lowry, Guest Editor (bio) In the spring of 1974, Dean Ed Holley encouraged those of us taking his seminar in academic libraries at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to read a recently published volume about the Columbia University Libraries study.1 He thought it was a pretty important milestone for the management of academic research libraries. Ed was seldom wrong, and I read it closely. A year later, Joe Boykin, then director of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte Library (UNCC), where I had taken my first job as a librarian, informed the staff and library faculty that we were being considered for the development of a new ARL program. The Academic Library Development Program (ALDP) would provide a self-study process for smaller academic libraries that scaled and shaped the methods used in the Management Review Analysis Program (MRAP), which was designed for large academic libraries. MRAP was developed by the Association of Research Libraries' Office of Management Studies (OMS) and grew out of Duane's work with Booz, Allen & Hamilton in the Columbia study. I knew the connection and excitedly entered into a year's work, which brought a rich opportunity and growth experience for a beginner. In the course of that time, I met Duane Webster for the first time, and the experience of working with him and Grady Morein, the on-site OMS consultant for the Academic Library Development Program, deepened my understanding of organization and management of academic libraries in a way that no other single experience could.2 Indeed, all the staff at UNCC were enriched and, admittedly, challenged by the experience. A few short years later in 1978, I had my second opportunity to experience directly the expansive impact that ARL's establishment of OMS had on the profession and to learn from Duane and his colleagues Deanna Marcum and Jeff Gardner. This was in the Consultant Training Program, which OMS created and managed. The program was well designed to give grounding in an array of skills for the participants, but it was focused principally on facilitation strategies in which the consultant is a catalyst to problem solving by library staff and management.3 [End Page 305] These early experiences with the innovative and critical offerings of ARL were simply the first of many for me that have continued to this day. What I learned gave me a toolkit of skills and knowledge that I have used and built on through over 30 years and six administrative jobs, five as a library dean or director. The point is that I was one of many such individuals who benefitted from OMS' work and Duane's leadership and skills. The pages of this issue give a complete sense of the astonishing scope of what was accomplished at ARL/OMS in the creation of programs, their variety, impact, and richness. The benefits to our profession grew as Duane became executive director of ARL in 1988. In that role, he was able to build larger strategies of collaboration that involved institutional allies for ARL members (indeed for all academic libraries). He created a synergy with other higher education institutions that is lasting and profoundly important. Programs like the Coalition for Networked Information and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition offered new venues for collaboration and individual development and learning. Similarly, the Research Library Leadership Fellows Program was designed to offer grounding for mid-level library managers in the skills and experiences needed for senior level leadership in research libraries.4 The point I would make is that Duane's career seeded academic librarianship with a large number of individuals who were grounded in the principles of organizational development and the management and leadership skills needed to run these complex organizations called academic and research libraries. There is probably a game we could play like the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" that would illustrate the pervasive impact that Duane's career has had, but there would be, at most, "Two Degrees of Duane Webster" separation.5 I am—we all are—indebted. [End Page 306] Charles B. Lowry Charles B. Lowry is executive director of the Association of...

This study assesses the current metadata practices and trends in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries, based on the survey Metadata conducted in spring 2007 (SPEC Kit 298: Metadata), a collaborative effort with the staff at the ARL. The survey investigates how metadata has been implemented in ARL member libraries: what kinds of projects or initiatives have been undertaken, what types of digital objects are associated with metadata, who are creating metadata, what schemas and tools are used to create and manage metadata, and the organizational changes and challenges resulting from the adoption of metadata in the libraries. The author summarizes her observations of the findings and the main themes that emerged from the metadata practices in libraries. She assesses the changing context of metadata creation and management and the evolution of metadata workflow and best practices in libraries. The author also discusses the roles and responsibilities of metadata professionals and the implications of metadata practices for the library and information community.

PreK-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) books are vital resources for student teachers in college-level Education programs. This study takes a best-case scenario approach by exploring the holdings of recent Outstanding Science Trade Books (Books identified by the National Science Teaching Association annually for K-12 students.) at twenty academic libraries. Even among large-budget, research-oriented university libraries chosen for our study, there is considerable variability in the number and types of titles owned. The works most likely to be present in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries include those that have won multiple awards. Titles about female scientists were among the most frequently held and were just as popular as works about males in STEM.

The Effect of Gender and Minority Status on Salary in Private and Public ARL Libraries

Introduction. As the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly advances, academic libraries are increasingly pivotal in supporting AI literacy among students and faculty. Method. Through content analysis, the present study examines 70 newly developed generative AI LibGuides from academic libraries affiliated with the association of research libraries (ARL) and the Oberlin group, using the EDUCAUSE AI literacy framework. Analysis. Through a detailed examination, the present research reorganizes and improves the EDUCAUSE AI literacy framework, proposing a more comprehensive version tailored to higher education needs. The adapted framework fills the gaps in the original model and offers a nuanced approach to AI literacy, reflecting the unique challenges faced by academic libraries. Results. The findings reveal that most LibGuides emphasize foundational AI tools and responsible use, with less focus on advanced technical competencies related to AI creation. Significant differences were observed between ARL and Oberlin Group LibGuides, with ARL offering more comprehensive coverage. To address these differences, consistent training and knowledge sharing initiatives are recommended to ensure a common standard of AI literacy support across academic libraries. Conclusion. This study provides insights into the role of libraries in promoting generative AI literacy and identifies areas for future strategic partnerships and improvement.

Library Investment Index – Why is it Important?

The purpose of this chapter was to convey the results of an exploratory survey given to human resource professionals working within the 123 institutional members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). The objective was to further define the role of human resource professionals in ARL libraries and reveal the nature and extent of human resource support for faculty and staff at ARL libraries. Respondents were recruited through email and asked to characterize their human resource functions by answering 35 open-ended and closed survey questions via an online proprietary survey tool. The response rate was 30% and provided data for the researchers to examine the experience level and education of human resource professionals, the role these individuals play in the day-to-day library operations, and the extent of interaction with the university human resource department.

Collection and preservation of the world’s research and literature has been a core mission of libraries from time immemorial but the specific challenges and opportunities faced by libraries in pursuing this mission have changed regularly throughout history. For ARL (Association of Research Libraries) libraries whose necessary historical context extends from the founding of the European colonies in North America to the present postmillennial era, the collection issues arrange themselves into five key periods. Beginning with the largely ad hoc collections of the colonial period, then transformed by the German research model and land grant mission, research collections entered a triumphal period exploding in size and support after World War II. Even success had its problems, however, as concerns about storage and the discovery of acid-based paper demonstrate. The following era of digital revolution brought its own challenges and opportunities for collections—first in using automation as a tool to deal with massive print collections and then, after the millennium, with automation increasingly providing the format of the collection itself. Most significantly, however, while the story of ARL library collection development may be better documented and their issues more widely discussed than those of other academic libraries, the fundamental collection development issues illustrated by ARL libraries are to a great extent the underlying story of all North American research collections.

Objective – The objective of this study was to examine and call attention to the current deficiency in standardized performance measures and usage metrics suited to assessing the value and impact of special collections and archives and their contributions to the mission of academic research libraries and to suggest possible approaches to overcoming the deficiency. Methods – The authors reviewed attempts over the past dozen years by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to highlight the unique types of value that special collections and archival resources contribute to academic research libraries. They also examined the results of a large survey of special collections and archives conducted by OCLC Research in 2010. In addition, they investigated efforts by the Society of American Archivists (SAA) dating back to the 1940s to define standardized metrics for gathering and comparing data about archival operations. Finding that the library and archival communities have thus far failed to develop and adopt common metrics and methods for gathering data about the activities of special collections and archives, the authors explored the potential benefits of borrowing concepts for developing user-centered value propositions and metrics from the business community. Results – This study found that there has been a lack of consensus and precision concerning the definition of “special collections” and the value propositions they offer, and that most attempts have been limited in their usefulness because they were collections-centric. The study likewise reaffirmed a lack of consensus regarding how to define and measure basic operations performed by special collections and archives, such as circulating materials to users in supervised reading rooms. The review of concepts and metrics for assessing value in the business community, however, suggested new approaches to defining metrics that may be more successful. Conclusion – The authors recommend shifting from collection-centric to user-centric approaches and identifying appropriately precise metrics that can be consistently and widely applied to facilitate cross-institutional comparisons. Adopting a user-centric perspective, they argue, will provide a broader picture of how scholars interact with special collections at different points in the research process, both inside and outside of supervised reading rooms, as well as how undergraduate students change their thinking about evidence through interaction with primary sources. They authors outline the potential benefits of substituting the commonly used “reader-day” metric for tabulating reading room visits with a “reader-hour” metric and correlating it with item usage data in order to gauge the intensity of reading room use. They also discuss the potential benefits of assessing impact of instructional outreach in special collections and archives through measures of student confidence in pursuing research projects that involve primary sources.