Advocating For Systematic/ Profession-wide Collection Of Data That - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Advocating For Systematic/ Profession-wide Collection Of Data That Could Be Useful

Bob Dugan University of West Florida

Perspectives …..

• Currently-used library metrics are no longer

effective in illustrating library value.

• Academics: IPEDS-AL component, ACRL, and ARL

annual surveys.

• Publics: IMLS-PLS and PLA’s Public Library Data

Service (PLDS) annual surveys.

• Hinders evidence-based advocacy -- sharing

evidence with stakeholders to tell the story of the library’s impact, so that they will then advocate on our behalf.

Reminder of Learning Outcomes

• Understand the importance of data

collecting and reporting as they relate to library-advocacy.

• Discover ongoing activities for data

collection and reporting to reflect the 21st Century library.

• Articulate two strategies for collecting

and reporting data.

Data Requested

IPEDS and IMLS focus on collecting and reporting inputs and

• utputs.

Multiple stakeholders request inputs and outputs for context.

So, what can we do with inputs and outputs?

Make the Best of It!

• Visibility/ transparency /

accountability for stakeholders’ perspectives

• Institutional effectiveness
• Happiness
• Trends
• Benchmarking
• Best practices
• Advocate to improve the inputs

and outputs requested to align with our reality.

Perspective on “Perspectives”

• Inputs and outputs are not
• utcomes – they have a different

application and value.

• Standards need to be applied.
• Instructions / FAQ text needs to be

clear.

• Legacies: changes in data collected

and reported when needed.

I can best speak to academic data, but I expect there are parallels to public libraries’ data.

a

• Academic Libraries (AL) component (started in 2014) of the spring

data collection is a mandatory, annual survey for all degree-granting Title IV institutions.

• There were early problems with the instrument and the instructions.

• Information about library staffing levels --

moved to the HR component

• Details on library materials expenditures
• Details on library collections
• Information about instruction sessions and

attendance

• Information on hours open and gate counts
• Information about digitizing activities
• Information about reference transactions

And While That is Going On ….

• ACRL revised its survey instrument.

• Fortunately, the first IPEDS AL

component survey director wanted to make sure that the survey was successful.

• ACRL, ARL and ALA organized a

joint Task Force to provide informed input to IPEDS.

• This Task Force is now in its third

year.

Joint Task Force Objectives

• Improve definitions and instructions to

improve the data (consistency, clarity).

• The inputs and outputs collected

represent the work of academic libraries.

TF Recommended and Accepted Changes … So Far

• Emphasized online systems and

discovery.

• Replaced volumes with titles.
• Count Open Access materials.
• Report serial titles in the

collections.

• Report reserve collections in

physical circulation.

• Include physical serials in

circulation; still excludes e-serials usage.

• Use COUNTER.

Via the Task Force, IPEDS is Considering:

• Institutional Repositories
• E-serials usage
• Shared collections
• New COUNTER measures as they

are developed and deployed

We Learned ….

• This effort represents

an activity libraries are asked to do – continuous improvement.

• IPEDS has constraints
• n all of its survey

instruments and the instructions.

• Clarifying instructions

reduces the number

• f help desk

questions.

• Apply NISO’s data

definitions whenever possible. It’s OK for us to ask that survey questions be aligned with reality.

ACRL Annual Survey

• 100% aligned with IPEDS - one response for two

surveys

• Captured “the best of 1998-2012 ALS”
• Timeliness
• Adoption of changes based upon respondent

feedback

• Pilots survey questions for IPEDS
• ACRLMetrics portal – peer benchmarking and best

practices (see also timeliness)

Benchmark from ACRLMetrics

Sorted on % Librarian Staff to Total Staff Total # of Staff FTEs % Librarian Staff to Total Staff % Other Professional Staff to Total Staff % All Other Paid Staff to Total Staff % Student Assistants to Total Staff Western Carolina University (NC) 53.63 37.29 0.00 52.21 10.50 Valdosta State University (GA) 51.30 31.19 19.49 27.88 21.44 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 35.50 30.99 22.54 25.35 21.13 Rowan University (NJ) 49.09 30.56 8.15 50.52 10.78 Stephen F Austin State University (TX) 57.00 29.82 21.05 24.56 24.56 Median 51.30 29.82 19.49 28.13 21.13 Average 52.73 28.27 15.63 36.79 22.78 University of South Dakota 32.00 28.13 25.00 28.13 18.75 University of West Florida 46.08 25.95 0.00 51.17 22.87 East Tennessee State University 54.00 25.93 11.11 46.30 16.67 University of West Georgia 96.00 14.58 2.08 25.00 58.33

Best Practice from ACRLMetrics

Best Practice: Libraries open between 112 and 120 hours/week; Total Staff FTE between 46.0 and 50.0 Hours open, typical week Total # of Staff FTEs Colby College (ME) 119.00 46.93 Bowdoin College (ME) 112.00 47.06 CUNY College of Staten Island (NY) 112.00 49.00 University of West Florida 112.00 46.08

• Have to email your peers for

comparative data.

• Face inconsistent and unevenly-

applied definitions.

• Don't know if your peers are

collecting anything you need.

What would happen if input and output data were not collected through library surveys?

Tell Your Story

• Visibility, transparency, and accountability.
• Multiplicity of stakeholders want this data.
• There is more research going on about libraries

than we know (e.g., using derived ratios).

• Standardized surveys provide quality data sources

especially if they have experience doing it.

• Trends analysis, benchmarking and best practices

studies.

• Surveys will continue to change as libraries

change IF we are involved.

Value of the library and the profession will help to show -- “it's not all on the Internet.”

Strategies: Don’t Catch Fire

IPEDS AL Component / IMLS Public Libraries Survey

• Integral part of IPEDS’ and

IMLS’ data collection efforts.

• Keeps us accountable at the

campus / local level.

• Increases library’s visibility.
• Annual surveys contribute to

a rich data set.

Establish a Culture

• This is not the same process as

assessing outcomes.

• Not necessary for a MLS to do

the counting; much is automated or mechanized.

• Depend upon your staff.
• Show your staff the value of

their measurement work -- show them what you show the stakeholders.

It’s OK to measure inputs and outputs.

Plan

• Set up a data collection plan

based upon present stakeholder needs.

• Maybe charge an internal team

to coordinate and manage data collection.

• An objective: answer any

input/output question from a stakeholder in 10 minutes or less.

Advocacy

• Be aware of stakeholders’ needs for

data.

• Standards are critical for consistency.
• Instructions are critical for clarity. See

also “standards.”

• Help us construct and improve surveys

for our reality. Be proactive, become involved.

• Goal: one survey, multiple responses.