From: "Loar, Ashley" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:31:34 -0700

‘Working together: evolving value for academic libraries’ is a
six-month research project investigating the value of academic
libraries for teaching and research staff.  SAGE commissioned LISU to
undertake the research in December 2011. Now halfway through the
project, two UK case studies are complete, and those in US and
Scandinavia are underway.

Some initial results were compiled into a short presentation to
coincide with the UKSG conference. This can be found on the project
website, along with a short summary of the findings so far, here:
http://libraryvalue.wordpress.com/publications/.

From initial results, based only on the UK case studies, there is some
evidence that the place of the library is aligned with the university
strategic goals and vision. There is also evidence that library input
is valued at a high level within the institution, participating on
standing and ad-hoc committees such as the ‘Learning &Teaching
Committee’, ‘Research Committee’, and a panel undertaking a
University-wide review of all subjects.

For teaching staff, libraries were both proactive as well as reactive
to academics’ needs and requests. They hold group sessions branded as
‘teaching sessions’ or ‘information sessions’, not ‘information
literacy’: The ‘information literacy’ label is seen as technical
jargon, which can be off-putting for both academic staff as well as
students, who find it difficult to understand what it means.

They are exploring integration into the institutional VLE, and also
act as a conduit between publishers and academics in how best to
provide material for students. They are recognising there is a range
of different types of academics, and that academic staff do not always
know what the library can provide.

For the research community, some are offering information skills
training for academics on a one-to-one basis, even going out to their
office. It was mentioned that academic staff don’t respond very well
to the idea of being trained – so those sessions are often called
‘awareness raising’ or ‘engagement’ or ‘library skills’ sessions.

They are offering skills training for doctoral students, including
support with working up grant applications and REF submissions;
information on Open Access (OA) repositories, and support for OA
publishing; plus information on publication, bibliometrics, and
citations. Academic staff often find it difficult to identify
bibliometrics and REF-related issues as part of the library’s
expertise.

On communication, librarians were meeting with academics through
departmental meetings, a library-faculty user group (staff +
students), and by having departmental library representatives.
Personal relationships and informal communication seemed to be
essential in building good working relationships with academic
departments. However, communication was found to vary from one
department to another and also from one individual to another. For
example, there seemed to be stronger relationships with the Humanities
than the Sciences.

Marketing was seen as important. One commented that they pick up ideas
from other departments who market their services to teaching and
research staff, and copy their successes. Another comment was that
outreach by one section of the library, e.g. the Special Collections
team, promotes the library overall. Getting rid of jargon was viewed
as key.

The perception of the library by faculty was viewed to differ by
discipline and by individual. Some faculty are very appreciative, and
know what the library does. Others are less engaged and less
appreciative of the work librarians do, and put off by the jargon of
librarianship. There was a comment that changing perceptions doesn’t
happen overnight – it takes work! To do this, they suggest engaging
with academics to change perceptions, find out where inaccurate
perceptions exist, and target promotion and awareness-raising.

In the context of fee revisions and NSS scores, libraries are aware
that they need to be able to demonstrate their value, therefore need
to use the evidence they have. Evidence was mainly anecdotal, but
there was an increasing use of surveys to gather hard evidence. Staff
feedback can provide powerful direct evidence of impact for particular
services. KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) were also collected
regularly and reported to provide more indirect evidence.

There were key drivers for demonstrating value: the REF and Student
fees, but also wider university strategy. The library must align with
wider institutional goals, and show how it contributes to those goals.
Value for money is key, overall, but also in the context of individual
resources and services, especially subscribed services, which are
becoming ever more costly.

The next stage of this project will be to release a short survey for
librarians in the geographic regions that case studies are taking
place, which will help to validate the findings from what is a
relatively small number of case studies. This will go live shortly,
and we would like to encourage everyone to fill it in, and let us know
what you think about library value. You can comment on the blog at
http://libraryvalue.wordpress.com/.

Thank you,
Ashley

Ashley Wrye Loar
PR Manager
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
USA